Perez v. Ellington (2005)
green
· 88 citation events
across 10 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200520152026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Thomas v. Durastanti (2010)
Whether, assuming a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable seizure, the right was clearly established Even assuming that Agent Durastanti did violate Mr. Thomas’ constitutional right against an unreasonable seizure, we must determine whether that right was “clearly established.” See Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005) (“If our de novo review of Plaintiffs’ version of the facts reveals that they do not amount to a violation of a clearly…
green
Evans v. Fogarty (JCH Inc.) (2007)
“Although retaliation is not expressly discussed in the First Amendment, it may be actionable inasmuch as governmental retaliation tends to chill citizens’ exercise of their constitutional rights.” Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). 9 Outside the public employment context, plaintiffs must prove the following elements to establish a retaliation claim: (1) that the plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) that t…
Thus, this court “ha[s] jurisdiction to review purely legal questions that arise from the denial of qualified immunity.” Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005).
green
Roska v. Sneddon (2006)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005). 15 When a defendant raises a claim of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the defendant is not entitled to immunity.
green
Blossom Ex Rel. Estate of Pickup v. Yarbrough (2005)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005).
green
Phan v. Volz (2022)
Appellate Case: 21-1199 Document: 010110640336 Date Filed: 02/02/2022 Page: 2 We review determinations of absolute immunity de novo.” Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005).
green
Romero v. Brown (2021)
We also review de novo the district court’s dismissals based on absolute immunity, see Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005), and Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Sturdevant v. Paulsen, 218 F.3d 1160, 1164 (10th Cir. 2000).
green
Romero v. Board of County Commissioners (2021)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) (absolute immunity); Columbian Fin.
absolute immunity
green
Grigsby v. Lemuz (2015)
Biehl v. Stoss, No. 07-3232, 2007 WL 2993557 , at *1 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2007) (unpublished) (citing Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir.2005)). “[A]ll witnesses — police officers as well as other lay witnesses — are absolutely immune from civil liability under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 based on their testimony in a prior trial.” Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1570 (10th Cir.1991) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 333-34, 344-45 , 103 S.Ct. 1108 , 75 L.Ed.2d 96…
green
Riggins v. Goodman (2009)
Qualified immunity entitles the defendant to avoid the travails of extended litigation, allowing interlocutory review of any “legal questions that arise from the denial of qualified immunity.’ ” York v. City of Las Cruces, 523 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir.2008) (citing Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005)).
green
Sawyer v. Gorman (2008)
“We review determinations of absolute immunity de novo.” Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir.2005).
green
York v. City of Las Cruces (2008)
However, because qualified immunity entitles the defendant to avoid litigation, “we have jurisdiction [on appeal] to review purely legal questions that arise from the denial of qualified immunity.” Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005).
green
Biehl v. Stoss (2007)
Biehl appeals. *** -2- “W e review determinations of absolute immunity de novo.” Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
green
Ellibee v. Fox (2007)
“We review determinations of absolute immunity de novo.” Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir .2005).
green
Ellibee v. Fox (2007)
“W e review determinations of absolute immunity de novo.” Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005).
green
How v. City of Baxter Springs (2007)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972).
green
How v. Baxter Springs, KS (2007)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).
green
Robbins v. Wilkie (2006)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005).
green
Robbins v. Wilkie (2006)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005).
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005).
See Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d at 1131 (“The First Amendment bars retaliation for exercising the right of association.”).
“The First Amendment bars retaliation for exercising the right of association.”
green
New Mexico Horsemen's Association v. Bregman (2022)
See Irizarry, 38 F.4th at 1292–93 (shining flashlight at camera of person filming traffic stop would chill conduct, especially followed by “gunning” police vehicle toward persons filming); Perez, 421 F.3d at 1132 (examining, under the second Worrell factor, “whether the type of conduct above [irregular tax investigation and delay in releasing liens afterward] is so egregious that an official would be on clear notice that his actions would deter the ordinary person from conti…
Immunity is determined by “the nature of the function [the defendant] performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Id. (citing Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005)).
green
Phillips v. Rose (2024)
Joseph v. Shepherd, 211 F. App'x 692, 697 (10th Cir. 2006); Pfeiffer, 929 F.2d at 1489 (“It is ... well established that this absolute prosecutorial immunity extends to state attorneys and agency officials who perform functions analogous to those of a prosecutor in initiating and pursuing civil and administrative enforcement proceedings.”). “[W]hen determining whether a defendant is entitled to absolute immunity, we employ a functional approach that examines ‘the nature of t…
green
McLemore v. Snyder (2023)
Immunity is determined by “the nature of the function [the defendant] performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Id. (citing Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005)); see also Pfeiffer v. Hartford Fire Ins.
Immunity is determined by “the nature of the function [the defendant] performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Id. (citing Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005)); see also Pfeiffer v. Hartford Fire Ins.
green
Aguilar (ID 129288) v. Wilson (2023)
Immunity is determined by “the nature of the function [the defendant] performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Id. (citing Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005)). 2.
green
Aguilar (ID 129288) v. Smith (2023)
Immunity is determined by “the nature of the function [the defendant] performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Id. (citing Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005)).
green
Ricci v. Town of Smithfield (2023)
Forfeiture is not “primarily investigative or administrative in nature,” 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) (cited in 928 F.3d 128, 140 (1st Cir. 2019).
cited in 928 F.3d 128, 140 (1st Cir. 2019). It is an enforcement action and, as such, warrants the same absolute immunity that protects prosecution functions generally. 203 F.3d 937, 948 (6th Cir. 2000
green
Aguilar (ID 129288) v. Smith (2023)
Immunity is determined by “the nature of the function [the defendant] performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Id. (citing Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005)). 2.
green
Donald v. Pearson (2023)
“Although retaliation is not expressly discussed in the First Amendment, it may be actionable inasmuch as governmental retaliation tends to chill citizens’ exercise of their constitutional rights.” Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted).
internal citation omitted
green
Minter v. City of Aurora, Colorado (2022)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1132 (10th Cir. 2005); Worrell v. Henry, 219 F.3d at 1212 .
green
Lopez v. Housing Solutions of the Southwest (2021)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1132 (10th Cir. 2005).
green
Pena v. Greffet (2013)
See Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d at 1189 (same); Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196, 1203 (10th Cir.2007) (same); Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (10th Cir.2005) (same).
green
Trant v. Oklahoma (2012)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) (“State officials are absolutely immune from suit if they ‘perform functions analogous to those of a prosecutor in initiating and pursuing civil and administrative enforcement proceedings.’ ” {quoting Pfeiffer v. Hartford Fire Ins.
“State officials are absolutely immune from suit if they ‘perform functions analogous to those of a prosecutor in initiating and pursuing civil and administrative enforcement proceedings.’ ” {quoting Pfeiffer v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 1484, 1490 (10th Cir.1991)
green
Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (2006)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005).
green
Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (2006)
Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005).
green
VDARE Foundation v. City of Colorado Springs (2021)
Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1157 (10th Cir. 2007); see Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1132 (10th Cir 2005) (holding that chill requirement was satisfied by rushed imposition of tax assessments and delay in removing tax liens after their abatement).
holding that chill requirement was satisfied by rushed imposition of tax assessments and delay in removing tax liens after their abatement
green
Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City (2010)
See, e.g., Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005).
green
Glover v. Mabrey (2010)
See Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir.2005) (quotations omitted).
green
Glover v. Mabrey (2010)
See Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted).
quotations omitted
green
Arnold v. Curtis (2007)
See Shrum v. City of Coweta, Okla., 449 F.3d 1132, 1137 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Behrens v. -8- Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996)); accord Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing M itchell, 472 U.S. at 528 ).
citing M itchell, 472 U.S. at 528
green
Arnold v. Curtis (2007)
See Shrum v. City of Coweta, Okla., 449 F.3d 1132, 1137 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)); accord Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005) (citing Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 ).
green
Crumpton v. Podolak (2006)
Id. (citing Skaggs v. Otis Elevator Co., 164 F.3d 511, 514 (10th Cir. 1998)); see Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir.2005) (stating that we review absolute immunity determinations de novo) (citation omitted).
See Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005) (“The First Amendment bars retaliation for exercising the right of association.”).
See Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005) (“The First Amendment bars retaliation for exercising the right of association.”).
green
Mocek v. City of Albuquerque (2014)
See Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005)(“The First Amendment bars retaliation for exercising the right of association.”).
green
Ramos v. Carbajal (2007)
See Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2005)(“The First Amendment bars retaliation for exercising the right of association.”).
green
Johnson v. Wichita, Kansas, City of (2024)
See, e.g., Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2005) (the tribe stated a retaliatory association claim because the state’s quick decisions issuing jeopardy tax assessments could chill a person of ordinary firmness from asso- ciating with a disfavored non-tribal member).
the tribe stated a retaliatory association claim because the state’s quick decisions issuing jeopardy tax assessments could chill a person of ordinary firmness from asso- ciating with a disfavored non-tribal member
See Perez v. Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (10th Cir.2005).