United States ex rel. Consiglio v. Day

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a “plaintiff may plead h[im]self out of court” if he 22 “plead[s] facts which establish that he cannot prevail on his . . . claim”
• observing that a policymaker’s meré refusal to overrule a subordinate’s completed act does not constitute approval
• acknowledging that “[i]n many cases, factual development is necessary, so the [Pickering] balancing cannot be performed on a 12(b)(6) motion”
• insubordination was a valid concern where a high-level employee “insist[ed] on a mode of administering his department contrary to his supervisor’s policies”
• “Under California law, county 10 charters, rules and regulations generally determine whether there is such an entitlement.”
• “If the pleadings establish facts compelling a decision one way, that is as good as if depositions and other ... evidence on summary judgment establishes the identical facts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).