State v. Smuin

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 public employee cannot present a cognizable section 1983 claim challenging a retaliatory employment decision unless the litigation involves a matter of public concern
• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to apply out-of-circuit precedent where there was controlling precedent within the circuit
• \There can be no doubt that loyalty and confidentiality are essential to the effective performance of the City Attorneys' office.\
• \[T]he State's interest in regulating the speech of its employees differs significantly from its interest in regulating the speech of its citizenry.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).