findings of fact in a summary judgment proceeding would be “ill advised” because “[t]hey would carry an unwarranted implication that a fact question was presented.”
How later courts described this case
- findings of fact in a summary judgment proceeding would be “ill advised” because “[t]hey would carry an unwarranted implication that a fact question was presented.”
- discharge of police officer because of statement of intent to violate departmental rules if police labor dispute unresolved was invalid in the absence of a determination that officer’s statement affected his efficiency or that of the police force in rendering service to the community
- "[D]ischarge [can] be justified only by a specific finding that the statements in question adversely affected his efficiency as a police officer or the efficiency of the Department as a police force."
- government bore burden to show that discharged probationary police officer’s statements detrimentally affected efficiency
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BASTIAN, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting :
I would affirm the case on the able opinion of District Judge William B. Jones, which is reported at 346 F.Supp. 1247 . In my opinion, the Judgment of the District Court should be affirmed without further ado.
So I dissent.