Lydia Colombo v. Raymond O'COnnell

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that school superintendent was not acting under color of state law when he threatened to sue the plaintiff if she did not retract statements about him that he alleged were libelous
• recognizing, in the context of summary judgment, that plaintiff who had been threatened with suit did not need to allege she was silenced, but had failed to allege an “actual, non-speculative chilling effect” nonetheless, rendering defendant’s actions “harmless”
• determining that the plaintiff failed to allege that her First Amendment rights were actually chilled after she received a letter from the defendant threatening a lawsuit because she testified in her deposition that receiving the letter did not restrict her speech
• “[T]he right of a private individual to sue and defend in the courts is protected by the First Amendment because it is the right conservative of all other rights [which] lies at the foundation of orderly government.”
• “[T]he right of a private individual to sue and defend in the courts is protected by the First Amendment because it is the right conservative of all other rights [which] lies at the foundation of orderly government”
• “[t]o state a claim under [§] 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that some official action has caused the plaintiff to be deprived of his or her constitutional rights—in other words, there is an injury requirement to state the claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).