Farhat v. Jopke

How courts have described this case

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

• finding appellant’s letters were his own “personal ‘beef ” and thus not matters of public concern
• finding appellant’s letters were his own “personal ‘beef’” and thus not matters of public concern
• finding this circuit has “distilled the ‘public concern’ test by stating that the court must determine: the ‘focus’ of the speech”
• finding this circuit has “distilled the ‘public concern’ test by stating 6 that the court must determine: the ‘focus’ of the speech”
• finding employee’s references to public corruption in letters were incidental to the focus of the speech and did not make the speech a matter of public concern
• finding employee’s references to public corruption in letters were incidental to the focus of the speech and did not make the speech a matter of public concern

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).