Lane v. Franks

Docket Number13-483
Decision Date19 June 2014

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
595 cases
  • Lightell v. Walker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • March 18, 2021
    ...employer's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs." Cutler, 767 F.3d at 469 (quoting Lane v. Franks , 573 U.S. 228, 231 (2014) (internal quotes omitted)). In determining whether a public employee spoke as part of his job duties or as a citizen, courts consid......
  • Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05694-RBL
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • March 5, 2020
    ...can[not] restrict employees' rights by creating excessively broad job descriptions." Id. ; see also Lane v. Franks , 573 U.S. 228, 240, 134 S.Ct. 2369, 189 L.Ed.2d 312 (2014) (The "critical question under Ceballos is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an em......
  • Austin v. Univ. of Fla. Bd. of Trs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • January 21, 2022
    ...here. But lest there be any confusion, the Supreme Court has rejected Defendants' remarkable position. See Lane v. Franks , 573 U.S. 228, 240, 134 S.Ct. 2369, 189 L.Ed.2d 312 (2014) ("[T]he mere fact that a citizen's speech concerns information acquired by virtue of his public employment do......
  • Khatri v. Ohio State Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • January 17, 2020
    ...and of value and concern to the public." Buddenberg v. Weisdack, 939 F.3d 732, 739 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228, 241, 134 S.Ct. 2369, 189 L.Ed.2d 312 (2014)). Dangerous infectious agents that could affect the health and safety of the community squarely fall into a m......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • A Review of the Supreme Court’s 2013-2014 Term
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • August 1, 2014
    ...Alito (joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) Dissent: Kagan (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) Lane v. Franks 134 S. Ct. 2369 Case No: 13-483 Decided: June 19, 2014 A public employee’s truthful subpoenaed testimony that is not ordinarily within the scope of the employee’s......
22 books & journal articles
  • VOLUME II Chapter 24 Constitutional Rights of Public Employees
    • United States
    • South Carolina Bar Labor and Employment Law for South Carolina Lawyers, Volumes I and II (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...discriminatory student discipline protected).[11] Lane v. Anderson, 660 Fed. App'x 185, 189 (4th Cir. 2016).[12] Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369, 2380 (2014).[13] Grutzmacher v. Howard County, 851 F.3d 332, 343-44 (4th Cir. 2017).[14] Berger v. Battiglia, 779 F.2d 992, 999 (4th Cir. 1985) (......
  • XV. Personal Liability: Qualified Immunity
    • United States
    • Sword and Shield: A Practical Approach to Section 1983 Litigation (ABA) Chapter 1 Fundamentals of Section 1983 Litigation
    • Invalid date
    ...132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012); Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011); Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999); see also Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014).[318] . Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 (1987) (citation omitted) (quoting Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 195 (1984)); acco......
  • IV. Constitutional Rights Enforceable Under Section 1983
    • United States
    • Sword and Shield: A Practical Approach to Section 1983 Litigation (ABA) Chapter 1 Fundamentals of Section 1983 Litigation
    • Invalid date
    ...testimony concerns the employee's official duties or is based on information acquired by virtue of public employment. Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014).[88] . Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006).[89] . Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012) (Court decided only that because law on......
  • RECALIBRATING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: HOW TANZIN V. TANVIR, TAYLOR V. RIOJAS, AND MCCOY V. ALAMU SIGNAL THE SUPREME COURT'S DISCOMFORT WITH THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 112 No. 1, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...Enforcement (Excessive Force) Carroll v. Carman,* 574 State Law 4th Amendment No U.S. 13(2014) Enforcement (Search) Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 College 1 st Amendment Yes (2014) President (Employment) Plumhoffv. Richard, 572 U.S. Local Law 4th Amendment Yes 765 (2014) Enforcement (Excessiv......
  • Get Started for Free