directing district court to give a Mt. Healthy instruction in a case in which the *929 defendants considered plaintiffs speech but denied that the speech was protected by the Constitution
How later courts described this case
- directing district court to give a Mt. Healthy instruction in a case in which the *929 defendants considered plaintiffs speech but denied that the speech was protected by the Constitution
- directing district court to give a Mt. Healthy instruction in a case in which the defendants considered plaintiff's speech but denied that the speech was protected by the Constitution
- "[plaintiff's] statements might conceivably have come within the scope of public concern and the government's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performed in this case may not have outweighed [plaintiff's] right to speak"
- “[T]his inquiry is a question of law, ... and ... the determination should generally be made at the outset of a case to avoid unnecessary litigation.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAUM, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, save the question of damages. While I believe that Anderson v. Creighton, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) mandates a remand of this matter, I adopt Judge Cudahy’s view of the damages issue.