McKey v. Roetter

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that Court must evaluate the employee’s “point” in making the expression to determine whether the expression was of “public concern”
• holding that public speech motivated by personal displeasure with policies was not covered by the First Amendment
• holding that, even if speech addresses a matter of “public importance,” it may nevertheless be deemed not of “public concern” if the point of the speech was to “further some purely private interest” (internal quotation and citation omitted)
• upholding termination of a police officer who publicly criticized his employer, based on potential disruptiveness of speech
• upholding termination of a police officer who publicly criticized his employer, based on potential disruptiveness of speech
• stating that a claim under § 1983 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff's speech be constitutionally protected and, if so, that the defendants' actions be motivated by the plaintiff’s protected speech

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).