Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 192 F.3d 742 - Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. Jones

Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

192 F.3d 742 · 1999

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
June 2024
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy (2007), Nelson v. Miller (2009)

24 federal appellate · 3 district ·

4001999200020102020decided

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 Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier · Burson v. Freeman

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.

  1. “The Pickering test, however, was crafted to balance the interests of the government as employer and the employee as citizen in the context of speech that has already occurred. In addressing such a situation of post hoc discipline, the government action is more closely contained to the individual or individuals involved, and a court can readily ascertain the effect of the speech on the workplace. The Pickering test on its face cannot be easily applied to a situation of a preemptive ban on certain speech.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'The necessary determination is that there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than the mere possibility which serves to keep the case alive.' " Id. (quoting W.T. Grant , 345 U.S. at 633 , 73 S.Ct. 894 ). The mere "theoretical possibility”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “recognizes the government's interest when acting as an employer in the efficiency of its workplace.”
    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.