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 4 cases, quoted by 65 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 McKinley v. City of Eloy.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | McKinley v. City of Eloy Anchor | green | “speech by public employees may be characterized as not of 'public concern' when it is clear that such speech deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that the information would be of no relevance to the public's evaluation of the performance of governmental ag…” | 29 |
| 2 | McKinley v. City of Eloy | green | “the competency of the police force is surely a matter of great public concern.” | 11 |
| 3 | Lily Keyser Maria Sofia Robledo Richard M. Cisneros v. Sacramento City Unified School District, a Public Entity and and James Sweeney | green | “that the public's interest in learning about illegal conduct by public officials and other matters at the core of first amendment protection outweighs a state employer's interest in avoiding a mere potential disturbance to the workplace.” | 10 |
| 4 | Roth v. Veteran's Administration | green | “there are underlying factual issues regarding the extent of office disruption,” | 6 |
| 5 | Brad Hufford v. James Mcenaney | green | “it would be absurd to extend first amendment protection only to those whistleblowers who immediately appear on the local news.” | 5 |
| 6 | Brad Hufford v. James Mcenaney | green | “notwithstanding this particularity requirement, 'closely analogous preexisting case law is not required to show that a right was clearly established.” | 4 |
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.