Kilpatrick v. King

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that whether a defendant is liable for First Amendment retaliation in part “depends upon the defendant[’s] motives for making the official decisions at issue”
• ruling that temporal proximity — the timing of a defendant’s actions in relation to the timing of a plaintiffs protected activity — can give rise to an inference of retaliatory motive
• “Retaliation need not have been the sole motive, but it must have been a ‘substantial factor’ in those decisions.”
• “We review the denial of a motion to compel discovery for gross abuse of discretion.”
• insufficient evidence to survive summary judgment when “[t]he bulk of [the plaintiff’s] case . . . rests upon attacks on the credibility of those officials who asserted legitimate motives for their decisions to [engage in the allegedly retaliatory action]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).