Vruno v. Schwarzwalder

How courts have described this case

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

• entering judgment in favor of defendants, and emphasizing that “there is simply insufficient evidence to show that any of the defendants knew that [the plaintiffs] were Democrats”
• affirming grant of summary judgment where evidence showed only “a vague aura of politically motivated patronage firings” and where a verdict for the plaintiffs “could only have been speculative”
• \[W]e must decide whether [plaintiffs] adduced sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that their political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in their discharge.\
• “Without that knowledge [that plaintiffs were Democrats] as a predicate, the fact that Diehl, who was a Republican, replaced Laskaris, cannot by itself support an inference that Laskaris's discharge was politically motivated.”
• “[W]e must decide whether [plaintiffs] adduced sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that their political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in their discharge.”
• “Without that knowledge [that plaintiffs were Democrats] as a predicate, the fact that Diehl, who was a Republican, replaced Laskaris, cannot by itself support an inference that Laskaris’s discharge was politically motivated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).