§Why CasetextPricing

Borzilleri v. Mosby et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint

50 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,626 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Pearson v. Callahan

    555 U.S. 223 (2009)   Cited 22,500 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may, without deciding whether there was a constitutional violation, look to the question of whether that right was "clearly established"

  3. County of Sacramento v. Lewis

    523 U.S. 833 (1998)   Cited 8,700 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"

  4. Garcetti v. Ceballos

    547 U.S. 410 (2006)   Cited 4,024 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, "the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer's reaction to the speech"

  5. Connick v. Myers

    461 U.S. 138 (1983)   Cited 5,862 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer need not "allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action"

  6. Siegert v. Gilley

    500 U.S. 226 (1991)   Cited 3,711 times
    Holding that the plaintiff failed to state a "stigma plus" due process claim where "[t]he alleged defamation was not uttered incident to the termination of [the plaintiff]'s employment [with a federal] hospital" but was made in a letter of reference to a different federal employer several weeks later

  7. Lane v. Franks

    573 U.S. 228 (2014)   Cited 1,054 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding testimony in criminal proceedings regarding public corruption raised a matter of public concern

  8. Elrod v. Burns

    427 U.S. 347 (1976)   Cited 4,219 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that local government could not constitutionally base public employment opportunities on political affiliation or nonaffiliation

  9. Pickering v. Board of Education

    391 U.S. 563 (1968)   Cited 5,662 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding teacher's dismissal for criticizing school board unconstitutional

  10. Buckley v. Valeo

    424 U.S. 1 (1976)   Cited 3,412 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a public financing law does not "abridge, restrict, or censor" expression

  11. Section 2302 - Prohibited personnel practices

    5 U.S.C. § 2302   Cited 1,487 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Protecting the disclosure of "any violation of any law, rule, or regulation ... if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law"

  12. Section 5-522 - Immunity - State and its personnel and units

    Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-522   Cited 138 times
    Detailing how statutory immunity is applied to state employees

  13. Section 1-303 - Employee rights

    Md. Code, Local Gov't § 1-303

    Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, an employee of a governmental entity: (1) may freely participate in any political activity and express any political opinion; and (2) may not be required to provide a political service. Md. Code, LG § 1-303 Revised and recodified by 2013 Md. Laws, Ch. 119,Sec. 2, eff. 10/1/2013.