James Durham v. Robert Jones

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding a jury verdict for a plaintiff police officer terminated in retaliation for speaking out about law enforcement misconduct that he experienced firsthand
• explaining “interest[] [from] the media indicates that [the issue] was of public interest”
• describing allegations of government wrongdoing and misconduct as a matter of public concern
• finding it dispositive that the plaintiff sought to inform the public
• “While [it] is correct that ‘concrete evidence’ of an aetual disruption is not required, there must still be a reasonable apprehension of such a disruption.”
• “[I]t is not enough that there is some disruption; the amount of disruption has to outweigh the importance of the speech and its concern to the public.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).