Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 139 F.3d 690 - Lawson v. Umatilla County

Lawson v. Umatilla County’s Empirical Analysis

139 F.3d 690 · 1998

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably LaLonde v. County of Riverside (2000), Gilbrook v. City of Westminster (1999)

10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

1301998200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 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 · Perry v. Sindermann · Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft · Connell v. Higginbotham · Portman v. County of Santa Clara

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “disclaimer. So construed, these regulations merely provide a framework for disciplining at-will employees which is not binding on the County. In this respect, the procedures may be analogized to the appeal rights in Gilbert, which did not interfere with the court's pronouncement that an”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “under Oregon law. See Portman, 995 F.2d at 904 . We therefore must decide whether the district court properly held as a matter of law that Lawson had a state-created interest in his position that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “secured Lawson's property interest in his job. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (stating that property interests”
    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.