green
Positive treatment
2.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
City Of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. Bridgestone Corporation
See generally New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 336 F.3d 495, 501 (6th Cir.2003) ("A court that is ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion may consider materials in addition to the complaint if such materials are public records or are otherwise appropriate for the taking of judicial notice."), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1183 , 124 S.Ct. 1424 , 158 L.Ed.2d 87 (2004); Fed.R.Evid. 201 (providing that "[a] court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not" of a "judicially noticed fact" which "must be one not subject to reasonable dispute," a requirement satisfied i…
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. Bridgestone Corp.
See generally New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 336 F.3d 495, 501 (6th Cir.2003) ("A court that is ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion may consider materials in addition to the complaint if such materials are public records or are otherwise appropriate for the taking of judicial notice.”), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1183 , 124 S.Ct. 1424 , 158 L.Ed.2d 87 (2004); Fed.R.Evid. 201 (providing that "[a] court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not” of a "judicially noticed fact” which “must be one not subject to reasonable dispute,” a requirement s…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Villega-Angulo v. United States
See also Nogueras-Cartagena v. United States, 172 F.Supp.2d 296 (D.P.R.2001), affirmed by Nogueras-Cartagena v. United States, 75 Fed.Appx. 795 (1st Cir.2003) (not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter, No. 03-1113), cert. denied, Nogueras-Cartagena v. Department of Justice, 540 U.S. 1183 , 124 S.Ct. 1424 , 158 L.Ed.2d 87 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Caraccilo v. Village of Seneca Falls, NY
Put simply, the question to be decided under the Pickering balancing test is whether “the employee’s interest in free speech is outweighed by the employer’s interest in avoiding disruption.” Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409, 415 (2d Cir.2006); see also Melzer v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York, 336 F.3d 185, 193 (2d Cir.2003) (stating that the issue is whether, “despite First Amendment rights[,] the employee’s speech so threatens the government’s effective operation that discipline of the employee is justified”), ce rt. denied, 540 U.S. 1183 , 124 S.Ct. 14…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bracey v. Board Of Education Of City Of Bridgeport
See, e.g., Melzer v. Bd. of Educ., 336 F.3d 185 (2d Cir.2003) (addressing section 1983 claim brought against the New York City Board of Education for retaliatory termination of the plaintiff's teaching position allegedly in violation of his constitutional rights to freedom of association and expression), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1183 , 124 S.Ct. 1424 , 158 L.Ed.2d 87 (2004); see also Scott v. Coughlin, 344 F.3d 282 (2d Cir.2003) (addressing under section 1983 a prisoner's claim of retaliatory disciplinary infraction charges against him for exercise of First Amendment rights); Phillips v. Bowen, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joos
v.
Joos (Monte)
v.
Joos (Monte)
No. 03-908.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 2004.
Published
Ct. App. Utah. Certiorari denied.