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.
6 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 25 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Cobb v. Pozzi.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cobb v. Pozzi Anchor | green | “indirectly 'by showing that the protected activity was followed by adverse treatment in employment, or directly by evidence of retaliatory animus.” | 6 |
| 2 | Jose Cotarelo v. Village Of Sleepy Hollow Police Department | green | “causal connection ... sufficient to warrant the inference that the protected speech was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment action.” | 5 |
| 3 | Caraccilo v. Village of Seneca Falls, NY | green | “although there is no simple checklist or formula by which to determine whether the employee was speaking as a private citizen or as a public employee ... 'the cases distinguish between speech that is the kind of activity engaged in by citizens who do not work for the government …” | 4 |
| 4 | Caraccilo v. Village of Seneca Falls, NY | green | “if the answer is 'no,' then no first amendment claim arises, and that ends the matter.” | 4 |
| 5 | Jose Cotarelo v. Village Of Sleepy Hollow Police Department | green | “the causal connection must be sufficient to warrant the inference that the protected speech was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment action.” | 3 |
| 6 | Jose Cotarelo v. Village Of Sleepy Hollow Police Department | green | “the inference that the protected speech was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment action.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.