Search for: ""Garcetti v. Ceballos" OR "547 U.S. 410""
Results 41 - 60
of 69
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jan 2011, 1:42 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 8:11 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S. [read post]
17 May 2012, 2:17 am
The latter was the issue in the Thomas case: Was Thomas’s report to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) made pursuant to his professional duties and therefore outside the scope of First Amendment protections within the meaning of Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, or was his speech a matter of public interest and thus protected by the First Amendment? [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 7:34 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), because it was written as part of Andrew's official duties. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 8:47 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)). [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 12:45 pm
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 420 (2006). [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 5:47 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006). [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 9:14 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421-22 (2006). [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 6:57 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 419 (2006). [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 3:37 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) and Weintraub v. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 5:01 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agency's operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public (the so-called Pickeringbalance). [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 6:56 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) that public employees who speak pursuant to their official duties are not engaging in free speech but unprotected work speech that carries no protection under the First Amendment against retaliation. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 4:05 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 10:12 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 1:59 pm
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), which distinguished between employee speech and citizen speech and held that the First Amendment does not prohibit managerial discipline based on an employee’s expressions made pursuant to official responsibilities. [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 6:59 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006). [read post]
25 Dec 2016, 4:09 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006). [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 9:44 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 4:16 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), that the First Amendment does not protect public employee speech made pursuant to the plaintiff's official job duties. [read post]
4 Aug 2012, 5:22 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), which rejected “the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties. [read post]
