The law of the case doctrine precludes UT from relitigating the viability of the chilled-speech claim ..................................................... [...] The law of the case doctrine precludes UT from relitigating the viability of the chilled-speech claim This Court has already decided that Lowery has stated a viable chilled-speech claim, even though Lowery did not state a claim for employment retaliation. [...] The doctrine serves to “prevent[] collateral attacks against the court’s rulings during the pendency of the lawsuit” and “while the law of the case doctrine is a ‘rule of convenience and utility,’ not an ‘inexorable command,’ ‘[a] judge should hesitate to undo his own work.’” Tex. [...] Judicial estoppel also prevents UT from relitigating the sufficiency of Lowery’s chilled-speech claim In addition to the law of the case doctrine, UT’s argument that Lowery failed to state a chilled-speech claim under Keenan v. [...] The district court below had also chided the “muddled” plaintiff for “confound[ing] a First Amendment claim for suppression of speech with a retaliation claim for adverse employment action” and held the plaintiff stated a separate § 1983 claim “for the unconstitutional stifling of speech.” Jackson v.
- Pages
- 24
- Published in
- United States of America
