Castro v. County of Nassau

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a security guard was speaking as a public employee when he “directed his complaints up the operational chain of command”
• holding that a security guard was speaking as a public employee when he “directed his complaints up the operational chain of command”
• holding that a security guard was speaking as a public employee when he “directed his complaints up the operational chain of command”
• holding that a plaintiff complaining of discomfort from handcuffs that resulted in “imprints on his wrists and caused his wrists to become ‘red and sore’ ” may allege sufficient facts to go to the jury on whether force was excessive (citations omitted)
• noting that in deciding whether speech was made pursuant to official duties courts may consider “whether the speech resulted from special knowledge gained through the plaintiffs employment” (citation omitted)
• finding that “there are no triable issues of fact as to whether [the defendant] had arguable probable cause,” and thus, the defendant was “entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).