E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Bokelmann

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that evidence of knowledge of the plaintiffs’ speech, coupled with evidence of differential treatment, is enough to sustain the jury’s verdict
• explaining that it is clearly established that “an arrest supported by probable cause but made in retaliation for protected speech violates the First Amendment”
• explaining that under the first prong of 16 the qualified immunity analysis, the court considers whether the facts show a violation of a 17 constitutional right
• finding that 16 plaintiffs showed objective evidence of similarly situated individuals not being arrested for 17 sidewalk chalking when (1) plaintiffs were arrested “while others who chalked and did not 18 engage in anti-police speech were not arrested”; (2
• “There is no evidence that anyone besides the Plaintiffs has been arrested for chalking on the sidewalk.”
• “[T]he issue of causation ultimately should be determined by a trier of fact.” (alteration in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).