Michael Dishnow v. School District of Rib Lake, Ramon Parks, and Paul Peterson

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the public employer must show that it “had a convincing reason to forbid the speech” in question
• stating that defamation alone is not “a species of liberty or property within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments”
• holding a school board’s alleged violations of open meetings law was a matter of public concern
• explaining that matters of public concern are “matters in which the public might be interested, as distinct from wholly personal grievances”
• holding, where a school counselor informs the media about a school board’s violation of open meetings law, “he was participating in a public dialogue on matters of interest to the public, and no more was required to place his speech, prima facie, within the protection of the First Amendment”
• holding, where a school counselor informs the media about a school board’s violation of open meetings law, “he was participating in a public dialogue on matters of interest to the public, and no more was required to place his speech, prima facie, within the protection of the First Amendment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).