Roger Peele v. Clifford Burch

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a First Amendment retaliation claim requires the plaintiffs to show “that the defendants were motivated, at least in part, by a desire to retaliate against [them] for [their] protected speech”
• finding that suspicious timing combined with evidence of political motivations to terminate plaintiff created a triable issue of fact
• finding that suspicious timing combined with evidence of political motivations to terminate plaintiff created a triable issue of fact
• explaining that one sentence of facts combined with boilerplate language did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 8
• explaining that “vague boilerplate language” is “not enough to give fair notice” of the claim under Rule 8(a)
• statements by a party to the case that are used against that party are not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(A), and may be used as evidence of improper retaliatory motive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).