Eberhardt v. O'Malley’s Empirical Analysis
17 F.3d 1023 · 1994
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Timothy Johnson Sr Luaine Sims Tj v. Newburgh Enlarged School District (2001), Otis v. City of Chicago (1994)
42 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
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))
Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Connick v. Myers · Daniels v. Williams · Bishop v. Wood · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“demonstrates nothing more than widespread compliance with well-recognized constitutional principles.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[TJhe purpose of the 'public concern' requirement is to distinguish grievances of an entirely personal character from statements of broader interest concerning one’s job, rather than to fix the boundaries of the First Amendment.” Swank v. Smart, 898 F.2d 1247 , 1251 (7th Cir.1990), paraphrasing Flanagan v. Munger, 890 F.2d 1557 , 1563-65 (10th Cir.1989). The greater the potential social, as distinct from purely private, significance of the employee's speech, the less likely is the employer to be justified in seeking to punish or suppress it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Fruin · Trejo v. Shoben“[W]here the employer brings a motion to dismiss the employee's free speech claim on the basis of the pleadings rather than on the facts in the record, the speech may be presumed to involve a matter of `public concern' if it touches upon `any matter for which there is potentially a public' interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.