Court Opinion

ID: 9477877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:33:20.516069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:05.785135
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent, adopting Judge Ripple’s fine opinion for the panel in this case, 819 F.2d 1393 (7th Cir.1987). The only close question here, it seems to me, is the matter of qualified immunity. The jury properly determined that this is a case of retaliation for the exercise of first amendment rights. That retaliation of this sort violates the Constitution is hardly an esoteric matter (distinguishing this case from the technical fourth amendment violations addressed in Anderson v. Creighton, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). Hence, I believe the right violated was “clearly established” in a sufficiently particularized way.