Case Citator › Bridges v. Gilbert

Bridges v. Gilbert

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Seventh Circuit
Citation
557 F.3d 541
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
2009
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Bridges v. Gilbert remains controlling Seventh Circuit precedent, but a Michigan federal district court declined to follow its suggestion that a threat to file a grievance is not protected speech. The disagreement is listed below.
More on how this was screened

All 28 flagged citations have been read; the other citing opinions applied Bridges or referred to its treatment of other decisions.

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.

28 later cases cite Bridges v. Gilbert; 28 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 Bridges v. Gilbert?

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

Declined to follow

  • A threat to file a prisoner grievance can be protected under the First Amendment, despite Bridges's contrary suggestion.

    Carter v. Dolce · Eastern District of Michigan · filed

    But see Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 555 (7th Cir.2009) (suggesting without further explanation or citation that “it seems implausible that a threat to file a grievance would itself constitute a First Amendment-protected grievance”). The Court believes that when it comes to protecting First Amendment rights, including the right to petition the government for redress, there is little difference between retaliating against a person for filing a grievance, and retaliating for threatening to file one.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bridges v. Gilbert 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