William R. Glass v. Alfred H. Dachel and County of Chippewa

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the plaintiff’s “challenge, like many election 3 disputes, is based on an interpretation of uncertain state law, which should be resolved at the state 4 level before we consider wading into a constitutional thicket”
• noting that plaintiffs comments about whether his supervisor had stolen a lawn mower and whether any departmental investigation would have been adequate can be fairly characterized as touching on matters of public concern
• explaining that the state bears the burden of demonstrating an interest which outweighs the employee’s interest in speaking
• noting that “matters of public concern do include speech aimed at uncovering wrongdoing or breaches of the public trust”
• noting that “a reprimand letter” can “rise to the level of constitutional significance”
• “matters of public concern do include speech aimed at uncovering wrongdoing or breaches of the public trust”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).