Rod Gustafson and Javier Cornejo v. Arthur Jones and Philip Arreola

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that mere assertion of a generalized potential for disruption was insufficient to support Pickering balancing in the employer’s favor
• holding that police officers’ statements about “how police investigations are to be conducted” were made on a matter of public concern
• noting the significance of the fact that the complaining officers properly took their concerns up the chain of command
• affirming denial of new trial after jury verdict for officers who had publicly criticized a department order limiting follow-up investigations
• noting the significance of the fact that the complaining officers properly took their concerns up the chain of command
• affirming verdict against chief of police and deputy inspector who retaliated against plaintiffs by transferring them to less desirable assignments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).