Citation network
Siegert Vs. Gilley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 1991
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 226 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Siegert v. GilleySearch
-
U.S. 226 (1991) Siegert v. GilleySearch
-
Siegert filed a damages action against Gilley in the District Court, alleging, inter alia, that, under Bivens v. SixSearch
-
to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting, among other things, the defense of qualified immunity under Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
of a clearly established constitutional right -- indeed, of any constitutional right at all -- since, under Paul v. DavisSearch
-
Army Hospital, and had rendered him unable to obtain other appropriate employment in the field. Relying on Bivens v. SixSearch
-
make out a violation of any constitutional right. Gilley also asserted the defense of qualified immunity under Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
were sufficient to state violations of a clearly established constitutional right. It analyzed our decision in Paul v. DavisSearch
-
found this case closer on its facts to two decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Doe v. UnitedSearch
-
States Department of Justice, 243 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 753 F.2d 1092 (1985), and Bartel v. FAASearch
-
discovery. Gilley appealed the denial of his qualified immunity defense to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
in a motion for summary judgment. Qualified immunity is a defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Gomez v. ToledoSearch
-
liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn-out lawsuit. In Mitchell v. ForsythSearch
-
the time of Gilley's actions, but he failed to establish the violation of any constitutional right at all. In Paul v. DavisSearch
-
out that our reference to a governmental employer stigmatizing an employee in Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSearch
-
but not a constitutional deprivation. The facts alleged by Siegert cannot, in the light of our decision in Paul v. DavisSearch
-
damage the reputation of one in his position, and impair his future employment prospects. But the plaintiff in Paul v. DavisSearch
-
test of Paul v. DavisSearch
-
is met. Our decision in Paul v. DavisSearch
-
asserted the deprivation of a liberty interest protected by the Constitution, under the principles explained in Paul v. DavisSearch
-
of malice and the objective test that prevails in qualified immunity analysis as a general matter. See Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
evidence. 895 F.2d at 803-804. Circumstantial evidence may be as probative as testimonial evidence. See Holland v. UnitedSearch
-
In a claim for damages under Bivens v. SixSearch
-
wrote his letter. Siegert's claim, therefore, should surmount Gilley's assertion of qualified immunity. See Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
A Paul v. DavisSearch
-
id. at 424 U. S. 708 (citing Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSearch
-
supra, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 705 , quoting Cafeteria Workers v. McElroySearch
-
U. S. 886 , 367 U. S. 898 (1961) (emphasis supplied by Paul v. DavisSearch
-
Court). Thus, although the at-will government employee in Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSearch
-
at 424 U. S. 702 -710. Indeed, the Paul Court explained the decision in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrathSearch
-
U.S. at 424 U. S. 701 -702 (noting the Court's recognition of a liberty interest in United States v. LovettSearch
-
of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the jurisdiction where Gilley worked. See, e.g., Davis v. SchererSearch
-
Old Dominion Dairy Products, Inc. v. SecretarySearch
-
of Defense, 203 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 382, 631 F.2d 953, 964 (1980). See also Conset Corp. v. CommunitySearch
-
Mosrie v. BarrySearch
-
Doe v. UnitedSearch
-
by the District of Columbia Circuit in a case with facts strikingly similar to those that confront us here. In Bartel v. FederalSearch
-
without an opportunity to refute the charges in the letter. The District of Columbia Circuit agreed that Paul v. DavisSearch
-
emphasis add.) See also Doe v. UnitedSearch
-
may be necessary. Anderson v. CreightonSearch
-
Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
U. S. 564 , 408 U. S. 572 (1972), quoting Meyer v. NebraskaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial