Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 F.3d 546 - Buazard v. Meridith

Buazard v. Meridith’s Empirical Analysis

172 F.3d 546 · 1999

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
April 2018
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Belk v. City of Eldon (2000), Ceballos v. Garcetti (2004)

29 federal appellate · 6 district ·

390199920002010decided

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))

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Rankin v. McPherson

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

  1. “[u]nless the employee is speaking as a concerned citizen, and not just as an employee, the speech does not fall under the protection of the First Amendment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When a public employee's speech is purely job-related, that speech will not be deemed a matter of public concern.”
    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.