United States v. Tommy Lamont Kirtdoll

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no “specific right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is otherwise supported by probable cause”
• holding that as of 2006, “it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to a First Amendment violation”
• concluding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity after considering only the “clearly established” prong of that analysis
• holding that a “First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause” has never been a clearly established right
• holding that a right is clearly established when the law is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would [have understood] that what he is doing violates that right.”
• holding that as of 2012 qualified immun‐ ity blocks recovery on a retaliatory‐arrest claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).