E. Frank Griswold, III v. County of Hillsborough

How courts have described this case

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

• \[NJeither a desire to cross-examine an affiant nor an unspecified hope of undermining his or her credibility suffices to avert summary judgment.” (quoting Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co.
• \[F]reedom of association is among the rights least compatible with incarceration.... Some curtailment of that freedom must be expected in the prison context.” (citing Jones
• holding solicitation has sufficient \speech interests” to merit First Amendment protection (relying on Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
• \Under Patterson [v. New York
• holding that corporate owner was in privity with his companies because he was their “sole shareholder and President,” and his interests were “closely aligned” with those of his companies in prior litigation
• acknowledging that “a court may no longer find privity based solely on a similarity of interests”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).