Kreuzer v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
128 F.3d 359 · 1997
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2019
6 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If you find that Plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence that his association with Officer Hohmann was a substantial or motivating factor in his termination by defendant, then you shall consider the alternative defense advanced by defendant. Defendant has the burden of proof as to this alternative defense. By this defense, Defendant City of Canfield contends, and must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employment decision made on February 4, 2000 to terminate plaintiff in his position as a police officer with the City of Canfield would have been made even if plaintiff had not been involved in his association with Officer Hohmann.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“First Amendment political discrimination claims are not subject to the Title VII burden-shifting device. Whereas a Title VII claimant retains the burden of proof throughout, even after the burden of limited production has shifted to the Title VII defendant to assert a nondiscriminatory motivation for the challenged action, in the First Amendment context [plaintiffs] successfully foist[] the burden of proof onto ... defendants simply by meeting [their] own threshold burden of persuasion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“an employee must prove that the conduct at issue was constitutionally protected, and that it was a substantial or motivating factor in the termination. If the employee discharges that burden, the government can escape liability by showing that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.