City of Keene v. Cleaveland
Annotate this CasePetitioner City of Keene appealed a superior court order dismissing its claims of tortious interference with contractual relations, negligence, and civil conspiracy, and denying its request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The City filed suit against respondents James Cleaveland, Garrett Ean, Kate Ager, Ian Bernard (a/k/a Ian Freeman), Graham Colson, and Pete Eyre, because they followed closely behind the City’s parking enforcement officers (PEOs) on their daily patrols through downtown Keene, videotaping them, criticizing their work, and "saving" cars by putting money into expired parking meters before a parking ticket was issued. Respondents testified that they engaged in these activities to protest parking enforcement because they believed that parking was not a criminal act, and that parking tickets were a "threat against [the] people." After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the action, ruling that the City’s claims were barred by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; the trial court also denied the City’s petition for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. On appeal, the City does not challenge the trial court’s conclusions that the content of the respondents’ speech is protected by the First Amendment because it relates to a matter of public concern, and that the respondents’ activities take place in a traditional public forum. The City nonetheless asserts that specific aspects of the respondents’ conduct — “following closely, chasing, running after, approaching quickly from behind, lurking outside bathrooms, yelling loudly, and filming from close proximity” — is not protected by the First Amendment, and had a tortious impact on the PEOs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the trial court erred when, solely because it had dismissed the underlying tortious interference claim, it denied injunctive relief without considering all the factual circumstances of the case. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.