Brian Mulligan v. James Nichols

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 21 “Retaliation claims involving government speech warrant a cautious approach by courts” in part 22 because “public employees and officials retain rights to free speech.”
• recognizing that “[i]nformal measures, such as ‘the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation,’ can violate the First Amendment” (alteration in original) (quoting White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1228 (9th Cir. 2000))
• recognizing that “[i]nformal measures, such as ‘the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation,’ can violate the First Amendment” (alteration in original) (quoting White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1228 (9th Cir. 2000))
• discussing the “high bar” for “analyzing whether speech by government officials is sufficiently adverse to give rise to a First Amendment retaliation claim”
• “Th[e] marketplace of ideas is undermined if public officials are prevented from responding to speech of citizens with speech of their own.” (citation omitted)
• “[N]egligence claims under California law encompass a broader spectrum of conduct than excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).