Search for: "D. Ceballos"
Results 21 - 40
of 46
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2023, 2:16 pm
Ceballos (2006). [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 8:32 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). [read post]
3 May 2022, 11:15 am
Rob Sherwin’s article The Changing Landscape of the Texas Citizens Participation Act is cited in the following article: Matthew D. [read post]
31 Aug 2023, 5:43 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006). [read post]
14 Nov 2023, 9:39 am
From today's Report and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 5:00 am
Ceballos (2006) Week 12, Thursday, April 27: Issues in Social Media Speech and Regulation Packingham v. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 6:30 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and Lane v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 9:37 am
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), which denied public employees protection when they speak out about a violation as part of their normal job duties. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 11:17 am
For example, last year in D’Agostino v. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 7:36 pm
Sutton’s article Native Americans and Discriminatory Administration with Facially Neutral Rules is cited in the following article: Cristina Isabel Ceballos, David Freeman Engstrom, & Daniel E. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 7:29 am
Ceballos for law enforcement employees. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 9:03 am
Maddox, 270 F.Supp.2d 38, 43 (D.D.C.2003), aff'd 117 Fed.Appx. 769 (D.C.Cir.2004). [read post]
26 Jul 2020, 5:08 am
Ceballos rule, under which even otherwise public-concern and nondisruptive speech is unprotected when it is part of the employee's job duties (though it might still be protected, even when part of job duties, if involves "comment on official dishonesty, deliberately unconstitutional action, other serious wrongdoing, or threats to health and safety can weigh out in an employee's favor"). [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 7:00 am
Ronald Collins is the books editor for SCOTUSblog. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 4:09 pm
An interesting case, Syed v. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 5:46 am
Ceballos). [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 6:10 pm
As far as I could tell, however, the Justices were anything but settled about how to think about those concerns in relation to the Court's Free Exercise doctrines--indeed, they expressed deep uncertainty about just which of those doctrines is, and is not, pertinent to the case.So I thought I'd offer a few additional thoughts here on the major themes of the oral argument. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 3:55 pm
Ceballos, the Supreme Court upheld the power of non-academic government employers to regulate their employees' speech that is pursuant to their employment duties. 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006). [read post]
26 Mar 2021, 1:33 pm
Ceballos (2006), or the speech is on a matter of purely private concern, Connick v. [read post]
20 Jan 2013, 7:29 pm
No. 305, 306; CM D. [read post]
