Case Citator › Siegert v. Gilley

Siegert v. Gilley

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
500 U.S. 226
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
42 of 42
Citing cases (total)
42
Treatment dates
2009–2010
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Siegert v. Gilley was overruled in part: all 42 flagged citations have been read, and the two confirmed treatments are listed below. They concern the order of qualified immunity questions and the requirement that damaging statements accompany a change in employment status.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court made the previously mandatory order discretionary in Pearson v. Callahan; Meyer v. State later described Pearson as overruling Siegert in part.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

42 later cases cite Siegert v. Gilley; 42 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Siegert v. Gilley?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • Made the order of qualified immunity questions discretionary, displacing the mandatory sequence that Saucier v. Katz had drawn from Siegert.

    Pearson v. Callahan · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We now hold that the Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • Questioned Siegert's requirement that stigmatizing statements accompany an employment termination, while applying that requirement.

    Goecks v. Pedley · Western District of Wisconsin · filed

    Indeed, Justice Marshall, in his dissenting opinion in Siegert, takes issue with the majority's reliance on Paul v. Davis ... Perhaps the holding that stigmatizing statements must be made incident to termination needs to be revisited, but this court is bound by it until then.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Siegert v. Gilley and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace