Hawkins v. Boone

How courts have described this case

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

• “[I]f Hawkins was truly speaking on behalf of the FOP, as this Court must credit at this stage, his speech was not ‘made pursuant to his duties,’ and thus would merit First Amendment protection.”
• “Under the pre–2010 WPA, statements to a newspaper would not be covered because The Washington Post was neither a ‘supervisor’ nor a ‘public body’ as required under § 1-615.52(a)(6). Under the current incarnation of the WPA, a disclosure may be made ‘to any person.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).