Gutierrez v. Fairman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “articulated concerns that Plaintiff was a racist or a future threat to others—is nonactionable opinion”
• holding that claims that plaintiff was a “racist” were non-actionable opinion
• holding that “the overwhelming majority of [the plaintiff’s] claims fall into ambit of other provisions of the Constitution,” including the Due Process Clause, “thereby closing off [the plaintiff’s] ability to seek relief by invoking the concept of substantive due process”
• observing that not all allegedly illegal firings, even when “not carried out by a ‘high ranking official with final authority over significant matters’” require an Article 78 action before bringing suit, and collecting cases
• finding that a statement was nonactionable opinion when it specifically “detail[ed] the facts underlying it” by, for example, noting that the statement was “based upon the following,” and identifying a quote (record citation and quotation marks omitted)
• finding statements in which the defendant “articulated concerns that Plaintiff was a racist or a future threat to others” was “nonactionable opinion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).