19 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Provo City Corp. v. Willdengreen2 sentences2004See Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 456-57 (Utah 1989) (“[T]he federal rules of standing, as such, are not binding on state courts, and [the federal rules] are not necessarily relevant to the development of the standing rules that apply in Utah’s state courts.”) (reviewing a First Amendment challenge). ¶ 30 Nevertheless, in deciding whether An-sari and Lagaña have standing based on the potential injury to out-of-state Internet users, we take guidance first from the recent Supreme Court holding in Sabri v. United States, which provides a stern reminder that “facial challenges are bes 2004See Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 456-57 (Utah 1989) (“[T]he federal rules of standing, as such, are not binding on state courts, and [the federal rules] are not necessarily relevant to the development of the standing rules that apply in Utah’s state courts.”) (reviewing a First Amendment challenge). ¶ 30 Nevertheless, in deciding whether An-sari and Lagaña have standing based on the potential injury to out-of-state Internet users, we take guidance first from the recent Supreme Court holding in Sabri v. United States, which provides a stern reminder that “facial challenges are bes | 3 | 3 |
City of St. George v. Turnergreen2 sentences2021George v. Turner, 860 P.2d 929, 931, 934 (Utah 1993) (considering a First Amendment challenge raised by music shop owner who pinned bed sheets to the walls and allowed patrons to spray paint them—which they did with a range of potentially offensive phrases and images; holding that ―it is problematic to dignify the bed sheets by calling them a ‗work‘‖); Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 610 F.2d 1353 , 1370 (5th Cir. 1980) (stating that ―a magazine usually is not as thematically integrated as a book or a movie‖ but is ―more so than a newspaper‖); City of Urbana ex rel. 2021George v. Turner, 860 P.2d 929, 931, 934 (Utah 1993) (considering a First Amendment challenge raised by music shop owner who pinned bed sheets to the walls and allowed patrons to spray paint them—which they did with a range of potentially offensive phrases and images; holding that ―it is problematic to dignify the bed sheets by calling them a ‗work‘‖); Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 610 F.2d 1353 , 1370 (5th Cir. 1980) (stating that ―a magazine usually is not as thematically integrated as a book or a movie‖ but is ―more so than a newspaper‖); City of Urbana ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
Ragsdale v. Fishlergreen2 sentences2025See Ragsdale I, 2021 UT 29 , ¶ 55, 491 P.3d 835 . 2025See Ragsdale I, 2021 UT 29 , ¶ 55, 491 P.3d 835 . | 1 | 1 |
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Networkgreen2 sentences2025See Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Network, 2012 UT 84, ¶ 47 , 299 P.3d 990 (“Constitutional issues . . . are questions of law that we review for correctness.”) (quotation simplified). ¶28 On cross-appeal, Ragsdale raises another First Amendment issue, contending that the court erred in holding that enjoining Fishler from displaying signs directed at her constituted a content-based restriction on speech. 2025See Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Network, 2012 UT 84, ¶ 47 , 299 P.3d 990 (“Constitutional issues . . . are questions of law that we review for correctness.”) (quotation simplified). ¶28 On cross-appeal, Ragsdale raises another First Amendment issue, contending that the court erred in holding that enjoining Fishler from displaying signs directed at her constituted a content-based restriction on speech. | 1 | 1 |
City of Urbana ex rel. Newlin v. Downinggreen2 sentences2021Newlin v. Downing, 539 N.E.2d 140, 148 (Ohio 1989) (suggesting that a ―magazine must be looked at as a whole and not as a series of ‗works‘ resulting in a ‗volume‘‖ (citation omitted)). 23 STATE V. 2021Newlin v. Downing, 539 N.E.2d 140, 148 (Ohio 1989) (suggesting that a ―magazine must be looked at as a whole and not as a series of ‗works‘ resulting in a ‗volume‘‖ (citation omitted)). 23 STATE V. | 1 | 1 |
Utah Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coalition, Inc. v. Stategreen2 sentences2014There, the initiative proponent argued that the legislature's limits on the right to initiative "impose[d] severe restrictions upon rights of free speech and political expression, and thus [were] subject to strict serutiny under federal free speech analysis." 2004 UT 32, ¶ 53 , 94 P.3d 217 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2014There, the initiative proponent argued that the legislature's limits on the right to initiative "impose[d] severe restrictions upon rights of free speech and political expression, and thus [were] subject to strict serutiny under federal free speech analysis." 2004 UT 32, ¶ 53 , 94 P.3d 217 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Weismangreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 626 , 112 S.Ct. *1275 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) ("If the early Congress's political actions [in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts] were determinative, and not merely relevant, evidence of constitutional meaning, we would have to gut our current First Amendment doctrine to make room for political censorship."); Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 665-66 , 109 S.Ct. 2678 , 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989) (referring to seditious libel as "this universally renounced, and long-defunct, doctrine"); Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d at 624 n. 11 ("Blackst 2006See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 626 , 112 S.Ct. *1275 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) ("If the early Congress's political actions [in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts] were determinative, and not merely relevant, evidence of constitutional meaning, we would have to gut our current First Amendment doctrine to make room for political censorship."); Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 665-66 , 109 S.Ct. 2678 , 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989) (referring to seditious libel as "this universally renounced, and long-defunct, doctrine"); Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d at 624 n. 11 ("Blackst | 1 | 1 |
Sabri v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004See Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 456-57 (Utah 1989) (“[T]he federal rules of standing, as such, are not binding on state courts, and [the federal rules] are not necessarily relevant to the development of the standing rules that apply in Utah’s state courts.”) (reviewing a First Amendment challenge). ¶ 30 Nevertheless, in deciding whether An-sari and Lagaña have standing based on the potential injury to out-of-state Internet users, we take guidance first from the recent Supreme Court holding in Sabri v. United States, which provides a stern reminder that “facial challenges are bes 2004See Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 456-57 (Utah 1989) (“[T]he federal rules of standing, as such, are not binding on state courts, and [the federal rules] are not necessarily relevant to the development of the standing rules that apply in Utah’s state courts.”) (reviewing a First Amendment challenge). ¶ 30 Nevertheless, in deciding whether An-sari and Lagaña have standing based on the potential injury to out-of-state Internet users, we take guidance first from the recent Supreme Court holding in Sabri v. United States, which provides a stern reminder that “facial challenges are bes | 1 | 1 |
Riley v. National Federation of Blind of North Carolina, Inc.green2 sentences2002See id. ¶ 143 I see no reason to believe that Article I, § 15 provides any less protection than the First Amendment presumption that "speakers, not the government, know best both what they want to say and how to say it." Id. ¶ 144 Petitioners argue that by requiring supporters to demonstrate geographic support for an initiative before it can be placed on the ballot, the State has imposed a severe restriction on the free speech rights of Utah voters, as well as chilled the initiative sponsors' right to political expression. 2002See id. ¶ 143 I see no reason to believe that Article I, § 15 provides any less protection than the First Amendment presumption that "speakers, not the government, know best both what they want to say and how to say it." Id. ¶ 144 Petitioners argue that by requiring supporters to demonstrate geographic support for an initiative before it can be placed on the ballot, the State has imposed a severe restriction on the free speech rights of Utah voters, as well as chilled the initiative sponsors' right to political expression. | 1 | 1 |
Bonner v. City of Santa Anagreen2 sentences2000The requirement that the unconstitutional conduct be "flagrant" ensures that a government employee is allowed the ordinary "human frailties of forgetfulness, distractibility, or misjudgment without rendering [him or herjself liable for a constitutional violation." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739-40 . [ 24 Second, a plaintiff must establish that existing remedies do not redress his or her injuries. 10 See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 425 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (refusing to create a damages remedy for an alleged due process violation where Congress had provided meaningful safegu 2000The requirement that the unconstitutional conduct be "flagrant" ensures that a government employee is allowed the ordinary "human frailties of forgetfulness, distractibility, or misjudgment without rendering [him or herjself liable for a constitutional violation." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739-40 . [ 24 Second, a plaintiff must establish that existing remedies do not redress his or her injuries. 10 See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 425 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (refusing to create a damages remedy for an alleged due process violation where Congress had provided meaningful safegu | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 6742green | 1 | 1 |
| Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.green | 1 | 1 |
| Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. Myersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| WERNER v. McCOTTERgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smithred | 1 | 1 |
| Thayer v. Mainegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arteaga v. United States District Court for the Northern District of Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Samuel-Bey v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. Carrgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lawton Chiles, Jr., Bob Martinez, Metropolitan Dade County, Intervenors-Appellants v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Donjuan v. McDermott
green
2 sentences2024Absent a valid exception to our preservation rule, appellate courts will not reach the merits of an unpreserved issue, id., even if the issue implicates a constitutional right, Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 21 , 266 P.3d 839 . ¶32 Joanna raised her First Amendment claim for the first time in her motion to amend the modified divorce decree—after the trial in the matter had concluded and after the trial court had entered the modified divorce decree. 2024Absent a valid exception to our preservation rule, appellate courts will not reach the merits of an unpreserved issue, id., even if the issue implicates a constitutional right, Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 21 , 266 P.3d 839 . ¶32 Joanna raised her First Amendment claim for the first time in her motion to amend the modified divorce decree—after the trial in the matter had concluded and after the trial court had entered the modified divorce decree. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2024Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 15 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wallace v. Wallace
green
2 sentences2024Absent a valid exception to our preservation rule, appellate courts will not reach the merits of an unpreserved issue, id., even if the issue implicates a constitutional right, Donjuan v. McDermott, 2011 UT 72, ¶ 21 , 266 P.3d 839 . ¶32 Joanna raised her First Amendment claim for the first time in her motion to amend the modified divorce decree—after the trial in the matter had concluded and after the trial court had entered the modified divorce decree. 2024In the ruling, the court held that Joanna’s challenged social media posts were “publicly made” and that based on the non-disparagement provision’s broad language, “it is proper to interpret social media postings as postings made to third parties.” In light of this adverse ruling, Joanna could have readily raised that issue at trial, or even earlier. 20220559-CA 16 2024 UT App 164 Wallace v. Wallace ¶34 Because Joanna did not raise her First Amendment challenge to the non-disparagement provision in a timely fashion, the issue is not preserved for appeal, and we do not address it on the merits. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ginsberg v. New York
green
2 sentences2021In reviewing an obscenity case, we ―conduct an independent review of the record to judge the merits of a First Amendment defense . . . yielding no deference . . . to the district court‘s conclusions.‖4 2 390 U.S. 629 (1968). 3 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 4 Butt v. State, 2017 UT 33, ¶ 29 , 398 P.3d 1024 . 2021In reviewing an obscenity case, we ―conduct an independent review of the record to judge the merits of a First Amendment defense . . . yielding no deference . . . to the district court‘s conclusions.‖4 2 390 U.S. 629 (1968). 3 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 4 Butt v. State, 2017 UT 33, ¶ 29 , 398 P.3d 1024 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
cluster 372546
green
2 sentences2021George v. Turner, 860 P.2d 929, 931, 934 (Utah 1993) (considering a First Amendment challenge raised by music shop owner who pinned bed sheets to the walls and allowed patrons to spray paint them—which they did with a range of potentially offensive phrases and images; holding that ―it is problematic to dignify the bed sheets by calling them a ‗work‘‖); Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 610 F.2d 1353 , 1370 (5th Cir. 1980) (stating that ―a magazine usually is not as thematically integrated as a book or a movie‖ but is ―more so than a newspaper‖); City of Urbana ex rel. 2021George v. Turner, 860 P.2d 929, 931, 934 (Utah 1993) (considering a First Amendment challenge raised by music shop owner who pinned bed sheets to the walls and allowed patrons to spray paint them—which they did with a range of potentially offensive phrases and images; holding that ―it is problematic to dignify the bed sheets by calling them a ‗work‘‖); Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 610 F.2d 1353 , 1370 (5th Cir. 1980) (stating that ―a magazine usually is not as thematically integrated as a book or a movie‖ but is ―more so than a newspaper‖); City of Urbana ex rel. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Miller v. California
green
2 sentences2021In reviewing an obscenity case, we ―conduct an independent review of the record to judge the merits of a First Amendment defense . . . yielding no deference . . . to the district court‘s conclusions.‖4 2 390 U.S. 629 (1968). 3 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 4 Butt v. State, 2017 UT 33, ¶ 29 , 398 P.3d 1024 . 2021In reviewing an obscenity case, we ―conduct an independent review of the record to judge the merits of a First Amendment defense . . . yielding no deference . . . to the district court‘s conclusions.‖4 2 390 U.S. 629 (1968). 3 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 4 Butt v. State, 2017 UT 33, ¶ 29 , 398 P.3d 1024 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Butt v. State
green
2 sentences2021In reviewing an obscenity case, we ―conduct an independent review of the record to judge the merits of a First Amendment defense . . . yielding no deference . . . to the district court‘s conclusions.‖4 2 390 U.S. 629 (1968). 3 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 4 Butt v. State, 2017 UT 33, ¶ 29 , 398 P.3d 1024 . 2021In reviewing an obscenity case, we ―conduct an independent review of the record to judge the merits of a First Amendment defense . . . yielding no deference . . . to the district court‘s conclusions.‖4 2 390 U.S. 629 (1968). 3 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 4 Butt v. State, 2017 UT 33, ¶ 29 , 398 P.3d 1024 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Pacific Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City
green
2 sentences2019Kidd's main contention appears to be that section 10-8-41.5 fails as a regulation of commercial speech, and in support she relies on Pacific Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City , which addresses a First Amendment challenge involving commercial speech. 414 F.3d 1221 , 1231-35 (10th Cir. 2005). 2019Kidd's main contention appears to be that section 10-8-41.5 fails as a regulation of commercial speech, and in support she relies on Pacific Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City , which addresses a First Amendment challenge involving commercial speech. 414 F.3d 1221 , 1231-35 (10th Cir. 2005). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. O'Brien
green
2 sentences2019But Kidd also relies on United States v. O'Brien , which addresses regulation of conduct that implicates protected expression. 391 U.S. 367 , 376-77, 88 S.Ct. 1673 , 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). 2019But Kidd also relies on United States v. O'Brien , which addresses regulation of conduct that implicates protected expression. 391 U.S. 367 , 376-77, 88 S.Ct. 1673 , 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Cook v. Bell
green
2 sentences2014There, the initiative proponent argued that the legislature’s limits on the right 10 Cite as: 2014 UT 46 JUSTICE LEE, concurring in the judgment to initiative “impose[d] severe restrictions upon rights of free speech and political expression, and thus [were] subject to strict scrutiny under federal free speech analysis.” 2004 UT 32, ¶ 53 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2014There, the initiative proponent argued that the legislature’s limits on the right 10 Cite as: 2014 UT 46 JUSTICE LEE, concurring in the judgment to initiative “impose[d] severe restrictions upon rights of free speech and political expression, and thus [were] subject to strict scrutiny under federal free speech analysis.” 2004 UT 32, ¶ 53 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton
green
2 sentences2006See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 626 , 112 S.Ct. *1275 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) ("If the early Congress's political actions [in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts] were determinative, and not merely relevant, evidence of constitutional meaning, we would have to gut our current First Amendment doctrine to make room for political censorship."); Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 665-66 , 109 S.Ct. 2678 , 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989) (referring to seditious libel as "this universally renounced, and long-defunct, doctrine"); Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d at 624 n. 11 ("Blackst 2006See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 626 , 112 S.Ct. *1275 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) ("If the early Congress's political actions [in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts] were determinative, and not merely relevant, evidence of constitutional meaning, we would have to gut our current First Amendment doctrine to make room for political censorship."); Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 665-66 , 109 S.Ct. 2678 , 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989) (referring to seditious libel as "this universally renounced, and long-defunct, doctrine"); Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d at 624 n. 11 ("Blackst | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Green
green
1 sentence2006Id. 140 & n. 14. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Ciancanelli
green
2 sentences2006See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 626 , 112 S.Ct. *1275 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) ("If the early Congress's political actions [in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts] were determinative, and not merely relevant, evidence of constitutional meaning, we would have to gut our current First Amendment doctrine to make room for political censorship."); Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 665-66 , 109 S.Ct. 2678 , 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989) (referring to seditious libel as "this universally renounced, and long-defunct, doctrine"); Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d at 624 n. 11 ("Blackst 2006See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 626 , 112 S.Ct. 2649 , 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) (“If the early Congress’s political actions [in passing the Aien and Sedition Acts] were determinative, and not merely relevant, evidence of constitutional meaning, we would have to gut our current First Amendment doctrine to make room for political censorship.”); Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 665-66 , 109 S.Ct. 2678 , 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989) (referring to seditious libel as “this universally renounced, and long-defunct, doctrine”); Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d at 624 n. 11 (“Blackstone be | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Dick Fischer Development No. 2, Inc. v. Department of Administration
green
1 sentence2000The requirement that the unconstitutional conduct be "flagrant" ensures that a government employee is allowed the ordinary "human frailties of forgetfulness, distractibility, or misjudgment without rendering [him or herjself liable for a constitutional violation." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739-40 . [ 24 Second, a plaintiff must establish that existing remedies do not redress his or her injuries. 10 See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 425 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (refusing to create a damages remedy for an alleged due process violation where Congress had provided meaningful safegu | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Salt Lake City v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2000Because Whatcott is mounting a First Amendment challenge to the telephone harassment statute, he has standing to challenge it "on behalf of others not before the court even if the law could be constitutionally applied to" him, Salt Lake City v. Lopes, 935 P.2d 1259 , 1263 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App. 1997), unless we are able to construe the statute in a manner that "will apply only to unprotected activity." Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 458 (Utah 1989). 2000Because Whatcott is mounting a First Amendment challenge to the telephone harassment statute, he has standing to challenge it "on behalf of others not before the court even if the law could be constitutionally applied to" him, Salt Lake City v. Lopes, 935 P.2d 1259 , 1263 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App. 1997), unless we are able to construe the statute in a manner that "will apply only to unprotected activity." Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 458 (Utah 1989). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bott v. DeLand
green
1 sentence2000The requirement that the unconstitutional conduct be "flagrant" ensures that a government employee is allowed the ordinary "human frailties of forgetfulness, distractibility, or misjudgment without rendering [him or herjself liable for a constitutional violation." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739-40 . [ 24 Second, a plaintiff must establish that existing remedies do not redress his or her injuries. 10 See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 425 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (refusing to create a damages remedy for an alleged due process violation where Congress had provided meaningful safegu | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Schweiker v. Chilicky
green
2 sentences2000The requirement that the unconstitutional conduct be "flagrant" ensures that a government employee is allowed the ordinary "human frailties of forgetfulness, distractibility, or misjudgment without rendering [him or herjself liable for a constitutional violation." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739-40 . [ 24 Second, a plaintiff must establish that existing remedies do not redress his or her injuries. 10 See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 425 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (refusing to create a damages remedy for an alleged due process violation where Congress had provided meaningful safegu 2000The requirement that the unconstitutional conduct be "flagrant" ensures that a government employee is allowed the ordinary "human frailties of forgetfulness, distractibility, or misjudgment without rendering [him or herjself liable for a constitutional violation." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739-40 . [ 24 Second, a plaintiff must establish that existing remedies do not redress his or her injuries. 10 See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 425 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (refusing to create a damages remedy for an alleged due process violation where Congress had provided meaningful safegu | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bush v. Lucas
green
2 sentences2000The requirement that the unconstitutional conduct be "flagrant" ensures that a government employee is allowed the ordinary "human frailties of forgetfulness, distractibility, or misjudgment without rendering [him or herjself liable for a constitutional violation." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739-40 . [ 24 Second, a plaintiff must establish that existing remedies do not redress his or her injuries. 10 See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 425 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (refusing to create a damages remedy for an alleged due process violation where Congress had provided meaningful safegu 2000The requirement that the unconstitutional conduct be "flagrant" ensures that a government employee is allowed the ordinary "human frailties of forgetfulness, distractibility, or misjudgment without rendering [him or herjself liable for a constitutional violation." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739-40 . [ 24 Second, a plaintiff must establish that existing remedies do not redress his or her injuries. 10 See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 425 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (refusing to create a damages remedy for an alleged due process violation where Congress had provided meaningful safegu | 1 | 2000–2000 |
John S. Smith v. James Fruin, Robert Biebel, Stephen Kuhn, and William Murray
green
2 sentences1999Moreover, the Dahm court also cited Smith v. Fruin, 28 F.3d 646 , 649 n. 3 (7th Cir.1994), which declares that “even minor forms of retaliation can support a First Amendment claim, for they may have just as much of a chilling effect on speech as more drastic measures.” Dahm, 60 F.3d at 257 . 1999Moreover, the Dahm court also cited Smith v. Fruin, 28 F.3d 646 , 649 n. 3 (7th Cir.1994), which declares that “even minor forms of retaliation can support a First Amendment claim, for they may have just as much of a chilling effect on speech as more drastic measures.” Dahm, 60 F.3d at 257 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Cyneth K. Dahm v. William F. Flynn, Jr., in Both His Individual and Official Capacities green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Andersen v. McCotter green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
AJ & AJ Servicing, Inc. v. Tudor Associates, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1999Further, the DeGuiseppe court cited Pierce v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 37 F.3d 1146, 1149 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1107 , 115 S.Ct. 1957 , 131 L.Ed.2d 849 (1995), a decision that expressly included a refusal to promote as an adverse employment action. 1999Further, the DeGuiseppe court cited Pierce v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 37 F.3d 1146, 1149 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1107 , 115 S.Ct. 1957 , 131 L.Ed.2d 849 (1995), a decision that expressly included a refusal to promote as an adverse employment action. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Nakamura v. United States green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Ukrainian-American Bar Association, Inc. v. James A. Baker, Iii, Secretary of State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Volpe green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| New York Times Co. v. Sullivan green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Bertell Ollman v. Rowland Evans, Robert Novak green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Ollman v. Evans Et Al. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Fabian v. City of Miami green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Williams v. United States green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Cox v. Hatch green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Waldman green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.