Putnam v. Keller (2003)

When we do so, we fail to discharge our responsibility to deliberate on and decide the question which needs to be decided. 2 In a different context, this court in Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541, 547 (8th Cir. 2003), misdescribed an aspect of Coleman v. Reed, 147 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 1998), as a “holding,” but the denial of qualified immunity in Putnam was grounded in an actual holding of this court in Winegar v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 20 F.3d 895, 89…

See DePoutot v. Raffaelly, 424 F.3d 112, 118 (1st Cir. 2005); Nicholas v. Pa. State Univ., 227 F.3d 133, 139 (3rd Cir. 2000) (Alito, J.); Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732, 738 (4th Cir. 1999); Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541, 547 (8th Cir. 2003); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 , 1557 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1994).

See id. at 773 (discussing elements warranting name-clearing hearing); Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 , 91 S.Ct. 507 , 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971)(stating “notice and opportunity to be heard are essential”); Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.2003) (“An employee’s liberty interests are implicated where the employer levels accusations at the employee that are so damaging as to make it difficult or impossible for the employee to escape the stigma of those ch…

Cf. Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541, 547-48 (8th Cir.2003) (substantive due process claim requires showing that government officials’ arbitrary action was conscience-shocking).

The court “may also consider conduct that evinces a ‘deliberate indifference’ to protected rights of [the plaintiff], if [the defendants] had an opportunity to consider other alternatives before choosing a course of action.” Putnam, 332 F.3d at 548; see Neal v. St.

The court “may also consider conduct that evinces a ‘deliberate indifference’ to protected rights of [the plaintiff], if [the defendants] had an opportunity to consider other alternatives before choosing a course of action.” Putnam, 332 F.3d at 548; see Neal v. St.

The court “may also consider conduct that evinces a ‘deliberate indifference’ to protected rights of [the plaintiff], if [the defendants] had an opportunity to consider other alternatives before choosing a course of action.” Putnam, 332 F.3d at 548; see Neal v. St.

School Dist., 107 A.D.3d 1127 , 967 N.Y.S.2d 432 (2013). 37 Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541, 547 (8th Cir. 2003). 38 See, e.g., Brandt v. Board of Co-op.

The requisite stigma has generally been found when an employer has accused an employee of dishonesty, immorality, criminality, racism, and the like.” Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.2003) (quoting Winegar v. Des Moines Indep.

See, e.g., Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541, 549 (8th Cir. 2003) (denying qualified immunity to public college administrators for violations of former instructor’s First Amendment rights); Burnham v. Ianni, 119 F.3d 668 , 676–77 (8th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (rejecting university chancellor’s claim that the law was not clearly established where “the suppression [of speech] was unreasonable both in light of the purpose served by the forum and because of its viewpoint-based discrimi…

See also Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 , 548 (8th Cir. 2003) (applying deliberate indifference standard where community college officials had the opportunity to deliberate before deciding what action to take against a faculty member).

See Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541, 548 (8th Cir. 2003) (detailing the rights recognized by the Supreme Court as giving rise to substantive due process claims).

See Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 , 546 (8th Cir. 2003).

See, e.g. , Putnam v. Keller , 332 F.3d 541 , 546 (8th Cir. 2003).

See Putnam, 332 F.3d at 546.

See Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 , 546 (8th Cir.2003); Speer v. City of Wynne, 276 F.3d 980, 984 , (8th Cir.2002); accord Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards & Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1153-54 (10th Cir.2001).

See Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 , 546 (8th Cir. 2003); Speer v. City of Wynne, 276 F.3d 980, 984 (8th Cir. 2002); accord Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards & Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1153-54 (10th Cir. 2001).

See also Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 , 548 (8th Cir.2003) (applying deliberate indifference standard where community college officials had the opportunity to deliberate before deciding what action to take against a faculty member). 19 Deputies Larson and Longen were at a police substation eating dinner and doing paperwork when they heard the dispatcher's transmission.

See Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 , 548 (8th Cir.2003) (detailing the rights recognized by the Supreme Court as giving rise to substantive due process claims).

See also Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.2003).

See Putnam v. Keller, 332 F.3d 541 , 545-49 (8th Cir.2003) (finding that “extraordinary circumstances” for reliance on the advice of counsel were not present in a First Amendment suit against college officials).