Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1980–1997 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni v. Board of Regents of the University of California, University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratoryred2 sentences1997See Mascheroni, 28 F.3d at 1559 ; Ambus, 995 F.2d at 994 . 1997See Mascheroni, 28 F.3d at 1559 ; Ambus, 995 F.2d at 994 . | 1 | 1 |
Durango School District No. 9-R v. Thorpegreen2 sentences1990Healthy test, we stated, “The free speech interest of most government employees generally will be substantial enough to prohibit discharge or termination solely because of the employee’s exercise of First Amendment rights on a matter of public interest.” Id. 5 See also Durango School Dist. v. Thorpe, 200 Colo. 268, 275 , 614 P.2d 880, 885 (1980) (balance will be struck in favor of the government “when it is demonstrated that the teacher’s speech activities constitute a material or substantial interference with the teaching program, appropriate discipline, or the rights of others.” (Citing Tink 1990Healthy test, we stated, “The free speech interest of most government employees generally will be substantial enough to prohibit discharge or termination solely because of the employee’s exercise of First Amendment rights on a matter of public interest.” Id. 5 See also Durango School Dist. v. Thorpe, 200 Colo. 268, 275 , 614 P.2d 880, 885 (1980) (balance will be struck in favor of the government “when it is demonstrated that the teacher’s speech activities constitute a material or substantial interference with the teaching program, appropriate discipline, or the rights of others.” (Citing Tink | 1 | 1 |
Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School Districtgreen2 sentences1980See Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 , 99 S.Ct. 693 , 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979). 1980See Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 , 99 S.Ct. 693 , 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ward v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1989Healthy test was followed in Ward because the claimant was a state employee and the focus of the case was "whether constitutionally protected activity has been used by a state employer to justify a reduction of unemployment benefits." Ward, 699 P.2d at 964-65 . 1989Healthy test was followed in Ward because the claimant was a state employee and the focus of the case was “whether constitutionally protected activity has been used by a state employer to justify a reduction of unemployment benefits.” Ward, 699 P.2d at 964-65 . | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Gregory T. Ambus v. Granite Board of Education
green
2 sentences1997See Mascheroni, 28 F.3d at 1559 ; Ambus, 995 F.2d at 994 . 1997See Mascheroni, 28 F.3d at 1559 ; Ambus, 995 F.2d at 994 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
green
2 sentences1990Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 , 89 S.Ct. 733 , 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969).) It is with these factors in mind that we must review Kemp’s claim that she was denied an employment benefit in retaliation for an exercise of a constitutionally protected activity. 1990Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 , 89 S.Ct. 733 , 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969).) It is with these factors in mind that we must review Kemp’s claim that she was denied an employment benefit in retaliation for an exercise of a constitutionally protected activity. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Johnson v. Jefferson County Board of Health
green
2 sentences1990Healthy test, we stated, "The free speech interest of most government employees generally will be substantial enough to prohibit discharge or termination solely because of the employee's exercise of First Amendment rights on a matter of public interest." Id. [5] See also Durango School Dist. v. Thorpe, 200 Colo. 268, 275 , 614 P.2d 880, 885 (1980) (balance will be struck in favor of the government "when it is demonstrated that the teacher's speech activities constitute a material or substantial interference with the teaching program, appropriate discipline, or the rights of others." (Citing Ti 1990Healthy test, we stated, “The free speech interest of most government employees generally will be substantial enough to prohibit discharge or termination solely because of the employee’s exercise of First Amendment rights on a matter of public interest.” Id. 5 See also Durango School Dist. v. Thorpe, 200 Colo. 268, 275 , 614 P.2d 880, 885 (1980) (balance will be struck in favor of the government “when it is demonstrated that the teacher’s speech activities constitute a material or substantial interference with the teaching program, appropriate discipline, or the rights of others.” (Citing Tink | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.