Coady v. Steil’s Empirical Analysis
187 F.3d 727 · 1999
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Joseph Locurto v. Howard Safir Commissioner of the New York City (2001), Board v. Farnham (2005)
28 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To determine whether a public employee has a protected First Amendment right, we undertake a two part inquiry, known as the Connickr-Pickering[ 10 ] test. First, the court must determine whether the plaintiffs speech addressed a matter of public concern. If it did, the court must then apply the Pickering balancing test to determine whether “the interests of the [plaintiff] as a citizen in commenting upon the matters of public concern” are outweighed by “the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the speech would create problems in maintaining discipline or harmony among co-workers; (2) whether the employment relationship is one in which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary; (3) whether the speech impeded the employee’s ability to perform her responsibilities; (4) the time, place and manner of the speech; (5) the context in which the underlying dispute arose; (6) whether the matter was one on which debate was vital to informed decisionmaking; and (7) whether the speaker should be regarded as a member of the general public.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sullivan v. Ramirez“We think it clear that being punched in the face would deter anyone from exercising his or her First Amendment rights.”
1 later decision 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.