Wackett v. City of Beaver Dam, Wis.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding summary judgment appropriate on a First Amendment retaliation claim where plaintiff could not show that defendants knew of the allegedly protected speech
• stating that a public employee must show: (1) that “his speech was constitutionally protected,” (2) that “the protected speech was a but-for cause of the employer’s action,” and (3) that “he suffered a deprivation because of the employer’s action”
• defendants entitled to summary judgment where the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the defendants knew about the plaintiffs allegedly protected speech
• “For a viable [retaliation] case, Wackett must prove defendants’ knowledge of the protected speech to establish retaliation.”
• “For a viable case, [plaintiff] must prove defendants’ knowledge of the protected speech to establish retaliation.”
• “For a viable case, [plaintiff] must prove defendants’ knowledge of the protected speech to establish retaliation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).