From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...
Schultea v. Wood
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
47 F.3d 1427 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc)
Facts
Joseph M. Schultea (plaintiff), a former police chief, filed suit against the city manager and three city councilmen, including David R. Wood (defendant), alleging that Wood and others were working together to demote Schultea because he was investigating the officials for illegal activity. The evidence suggested that when Schultea began investigating Wood, Wood insisted that Schultea be added to the council agenda for possible sanction, and subsequent to the private council meeting Schultea was demoted. Several requests by Schultea for administrative appeals were denied, and the council issued a memorandum which implied that Schultea was demoted for wrongdoing. Schultea filed suit, alleging that he was deprived of property and liberty interests without due process and that his First Amendment rights were violated. Wood moved to dismiss and brought an interlocutory appeal, challenging the denial of his qualified immunity. The panel remanded to allow Schultea to amend his complaint, holding that despite the United States Supreme Court ruling in Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993), the Fifth Circuit’s heightened pleading standard remained intact.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Higginbotham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.