Maldonado v. Liberty El. Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an individual’s decision was not a final policymaking decision in support of a Monell claim because another individual reviewed and overrode that decision
• holding that the subject matter of the speech would have been relevant had Plaintiff been, for example, a “public employee alleging retaliation” or “a defamation defendant seeking protection from tort liability”
• stating that a malicious-prosecution claim requires proof that “the criminal proceedings have terminated in favor of the plaintiff”
• reiterating that a private citizen plaintiff “does not need to establish that his speech addressed a matter of public significance in order to receive the protection of the First Amendment”
• requiring deprivation of a constitutional right as an element of a § 1983 claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).