Louis P. Camjudgesli v. Robert L. Bockrath, and Daniel Boggan

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “whether the defendants’ alleged characterization of events ... is substantially false is an issue of fact”
• declining to 30 PEREZ V. CITY OF ROSEVILLE establish a bright line test and concluding that nexus requirement satisfied where statements made to press one week after termination
• rejecting bright-line rule that post-termination statements cannot form basis of liberty deprivation and holding that statements made one week after termination were made in course of termination
• “At some point, defamatory statements may become too remote in time from the termination to be considered made ‘in the course of the termination’ ”
• notinq distinction between \post­ termination statements\ and \statements made concurrently with the termination . . . [and] published in a newspaper at a later time\
• coach fired for deliberately inflicting verbal and psychological abuse on children met stigma requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).