Ronald E. Pleva v. John O. Norquist’s Empirical Analysis
195 F.3d 905 · 1999
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Thompson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation (2002), 135 Md. App. 483 - Samuels v. Tschechtelin (2000)
16 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Perry v. Sindermann · Paul v. Davis
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One can only assume that individual members will flesh out the meaning of [the board's mandate] with their own policy, and inevitably political, interpretations of what is in the best interest of the public.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Board members [were] given considerable discretion to implement the broad goals of city zoning policy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The First Amendment protects a person from being removed from public employment for purely political reasons, with certain exceptions for policymaking positions and employees having a confidential relationship with a superi- or. In order to establish a prima facie case for this type of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate two things: first, that her conduct was constitutionally protected, and second, that the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the employment decision. A plaintiffs claim will fail if she merely shows that she was of a different political persuasion than the decision makers or the successful applicant. If a plaintiff can make out a prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that there was a legitimate, non-political reason for the employment decision.”
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.