neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
published
0.3 score
Cited for
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“Even assuming that [the employee's] right to petition was implicated, the Pickering/Connick balancing test is equally applicable in deciding whether the state's interest as an employer outweighs the [F]irst [A]mendment interest of the employee.”
- Shahar v. Bowers, 70 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 1995).published“Even assuming that [the employee's] right to petition was implicated, the Pickering/Connick balancing test is equally applicable in deciding whether the state's interest as an employer outweighs the [F]irst [A]mendment…”
- Robin Joy Shahar v. Michael J. Bowers, Individually & in His Off. Capacity as Attorney Gen. of the State of Georgia, 114 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 1997).published“Even assuming that [the employee's] right to petition was implicated, the Pickering/Connick balancing test is equally applicable in deciding whether the state's interest as an employer outweighs the [F]irst [A]mendment…”
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Duyck
v.
New York
v.
New York
No. 90-1526.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 10, 1991.
Published opinion
Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (2)
App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 9th and 10th Jud. Dists. Certiorari denied.