Washington Sand & Gravel Co. v. Brann & Stuart Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the First Amendment retaliation claim preempted a substantive due process claim based on the same retaliatory discharge
• analyzing claim under First Amendment but not under substantive due process
• explaining “[i]f, in a § 1983 suit, the plaintiff’s claim can be analyzed under an explicit textual source of rights in the Constitution, a court should not resort to the more subjective standard of substantive due process.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “It would be absurd to extend First Amendment protection only to those whistle-blowers who immediately appear on the local news.”
• \It would be absurd to extend First Amendment protection only to those whistle-blowers who immediately appear on the local news.\
• “Employers cannot be said to have a legitimate interest in silencing reports of corruption or potential illegality.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).