Dzwonar v. McDevitt’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 34 district · 44 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 401 (Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) · 29 U.S.C. § 411 · 29 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Calhoon v. Harvey · Abbamont v. Piscataway Township Board of Education · Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp. · Blackburn v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · 320 N.J. Super. 467 - Kolb v. Burns
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) he or she reasonably believed that his or her employer’s conduct was violating either a law, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or a clear mandate of public policy; (2) he or she performed a ‘whistle-blowing’ activity described in N.J.S.A. 34:19-3c; (3) an adverse employment action was taken against him or her; and (4) a causal connection exists between the whistle-blowing activity and the adverse employment action.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) Objects to, or refuses to participate in any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes: (1) is in violation of a law, or a rale or regulation promulgated pursuant to law ... or, if the employee is a licensed or certified health care professional, constitutes improper quality of patient care. [N.J.S.A. 34:19 — 3(c)(1).]”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N.J. Stat. Ann. § ]34:19-3c does not require a plaintiff to show that a law, rule, regulation or clear mandate of public policy actually would be violated if all the facts he or she alleges are true. Instead, a plaintiff must set forth facts that would support an objectively reasonable belief that a violation has occurred. In other words, when a defendant requests that the trial court determine as a matter of law that a plaintiffs belief was not objectively reasonable, the trial court must make a threshold determination that there is a substantial nexus between the complained-of conduct and a law or public policy identified by the court or the plaintiff. If the trial court so finds, the jury then must determine whether the plaintiff actually held such a belief and, if so, whether that belief was objectively reasonable.”
6 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.