Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 F.3d 1378 - Lachance v. White

Lachance v. White’s Empirical Analysis

174 F.3d 1378 · 1999

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), Schism v. United States (2002)

22 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions

5001999200020102020decided

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 Jay v. Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services · Johnathan Cole v. James Purkett, Superintendent at Farmington Correctional Center · Applied Medical Resources Corporation v. United States Surgical Corporation · Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Johnson

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

  1. “A purely subjective perspective of an employee is not sufficient even if shared by other employees.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences— (i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety....”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) the acting official has the authority to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action; (2) the aggrieved employee made a disclosure protected under [5 U.S.C.] 2302(b)(8); (3) the acting official used his authority to take, or refuse to take, a personnel action against the aggrieved employee; (4) the acting official took, or failed to take, the personnel action against the aggrieved employee because of the protected disclosure.”
    4 later decisions 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.