Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 N.M. 488 - Jacobs v. Meister

Jacobs v. Meister’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Russillo v. Scarborough (1991), Carrillo v. Rostro (1992)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions

1401989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This is to be determined from an analysis of whether [the plaintiff's] statements were directed at persons with whom he would normally be in day to day contact so as to impair a close working relationship; whether the statements were detrimental only to the interests of the administration rather than the school itself; and whether the statements were directed toward matters of legitimate public concern upon which any citizen must be allowed to comment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “weighing the needs of the government as an employer against the public interest in an employee's speech, to determine whether the speech is protected by the first amendment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[d]istress is a personal injury familiar to the law”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.