Pendleton v. City of Haverhill

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defamation plaintiff was a public figure because he “voluntarily injected himself’ into the controversy
• holding that “the question of whether a defamation plaintiff is a public figure is properly resolved by the court, not by the jury”
• holding that “a violation of constitutional proportions under a ‘stigma plus’ theory exists only if, and to the extent that, the opportunities lost are government benefices denied as a result of government action”
• noting that defamation can be a section 1983 predicate when there are impacts beyond mere reputational injury
• noting that “the stigmatizing statements must have been made in conjunction with an alteration of the employee’s legal status, such as the termination of his employment”
• upholding district court’s ruling, made at the conclusion of the evidence, that the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).