Ariano v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a court determines whether speech addresses a matter of public concern by “evaluating the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
• affirming judgment against plaintiff because she failed to identify any “explicit statutory or constitutional provision, or a judicially conceived notion of public policy”
• looking to Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983), and Luck v. Mazzone, 52 F.3d 475 (2d Cir.1995), to determine whether section 31-51q applies to speech about private matters
• setting forth the same First Amendment analysis for claims under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-51q
• finding accord between the Supreme Court’s decision in Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-148, 103 S.Ct. 1684 and the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Schnabel v. Tyler, 230 Conn. 735, 646 A.2d 152, 163 (1994)
• noting the limitations of state and federal protections for medical and family leave

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).