Daniel F. Sullivan v. Frederick R. Carrick

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 plaintiff must show that her speech was “actually chilled” to state a First Amendment violation
• holding that a plaintiff must show that her speech was “actually chilled” to state a First Amendment violation
• holding that plaintiffs “mere allegation that he was harmed” with “no specifics offered to support such a conclusion” does satisfy the causation requirement of section 1983 action alleging violation of the First Amendment
• finding that “broad and 2 vague” reasons do not suffice
• \To show a First Amendment violation in this context [plaintiff] must allege that his speech was in fact chilled or intimidated.\
• \To show a First Amendment violation in this context [plaintiff] must allege that his speech was in fact chilled or intimidated.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).