Nikelly v. Stubing

How courts have described this case

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

• noting the plaintiff’s allegations in Hoffman “were so egregious that it could be inferred they were actuated by personal animus toward the plaintiff, and could not have been motivated by concern for the welfare of the university”
• absence of specific facts showing personal animosity or acts committed for any purpose other than what defendant perceived to be the best interests of the agency were, therefore, actions against the State
• absence of specific facts showing personal animosity or acts committed for any purpose other than what defendant perceived to be the best interests of the agency were, therefore, actions against the State

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).