Juarez v. Aguilar

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• \Assuming [employee's] allegations are true ... such conduct would fall well within the clearly established elements of retaliation in violation of [employee's] First Amendment rights.\ (emphasis added)
• upholding the denial of qualified immunity for a retaliation claim when the retaliation allegations showed conduct falling “within the clearly established elements of retaliation in violation of [ ] First Amendment rights”
• “Where factual disputes exist in an interlocutory appeal asserting qualified immunity, we accept the [plaintiff’s] version of the facts as true.”
• “That this court has not previously considered an identical fact pattern does not mean that a litigant’s rights were not clearly established.”
• “Where factual disputes exist in an interlocutory appeal asserting qualified immunity, we accept the plaintiff’s version of the facts as true.” (quoting Kinney, 367 F.3d at 348) (cleaned up)
• stating rule in summary judgment context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).