Padgett v. Wright
- Decided
- November 20, 2009
- Docket
- 08-16720
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,091 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that we generally do not consider issues “not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief” — Jeremy Strohmeyer v. Beguefuth (2023)
- observing that this court does “not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief” — Shane Betts v. Peter Swann (2024)
- stating that the court ordinarily will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal — In re: Ittella International LLC and Ittella's Chef, Inc. and Tattooed Chef, Inc. and Myjojo, Inc. and New Mexico Food Distributors, Inc. and Karsten Tortilla Factory, LLC and Bci Acquisition, Inc. and Ttcf-Nm Holdings Inc. (2025)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
ORDER AND OPINION ORDER The mandate in this case and the opinion filed on October 14, 2009, are hereby withdrawn. The opinion filed concurrently with this order will replace the October 14, 2009, opinion, and mandate shall issue forthwith. [*985] OPINION PER CURIAM:
A Curtis Wright appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity in this § 1983 action. After this qualified immunity appeal was filed, the case went to trial, and a jury found Wright hable to appellee Joseph Padgett for deprivation of his First Amendment rights. We dismiss this appeal.
Generally, denials of summary judgment are not appealable.
Cite this
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (2009)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.