§Why CasetextPricing

BOLING v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

Respondent’s Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

85 Cited authorities

  1. Garcetti v. Ceballos

    547 U.S. 410 (2006)   Cited 4,009 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"

  2. Connick v. Myers

    461 U.S. 138 (1983)   Cited 5,851 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"

  3. Pickering v. Board of Education

    391 U.S. 563 (1968)   Cited 5,650 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding teacher's dismissal for criticizing school board unconstitutional

  4. Broadrick v. Oklahoma

    413 U.S. 601 (1973)   Cited 3,430 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Oklahoma may regulate the political activities of its state employees

  5. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia

    515 U.S. 819 (1995)   Cited 1,291 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Establishment Clause does not bar disbursement of funds from student activity fees to religious organizations

  6. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

    555 U.S. 460 (2009)   Cited 656 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a government adopted donated monument because it "took ownership of that monument and put it on permanent display in a park that it owns and manages"

  7. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.

    529 U.S. 803 (2000)   Cited 817 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute was content based because it “applies only to channels primarily dedicated to sexually explicit adult programming or other programming that is indecent”

  8. Waters v. Churchill

    511 U.S. 661 (1994)   Cited 928 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that basing a termination decision on "the word of two trusted employees, the endorsement of those employees’ reliability," and "a face-to-face meeting with the employee he fired" was reasonable and "no further time needed to be taken"

  9. City of San Diego v. Roe

    543 U.S. 77 (2004)   Cited 549 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that reliance on NTEU “was seriously misplaced” when plaintiff deliberately linked speech to public employment

  10. Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart

    427 U.S. 539 (1976)   Cited 1,426 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the record [was] lacking in evidence to support" a finding that alternative "measures might not be adequate"

  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer