Glass v. Dachel’s Empirical Analysis
2 F.3d 733 · 1993
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Wright v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services (1994), Nabozny v. Podlesny (1996)
46 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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 his 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 decision making; and (7) whether the speaker should be regarded as a member of the general public.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the context in which the underlying dispute arose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where facts are not disputed, if a district court grants one party's motion for summary judgment and denies the other party's cross-motion, this court can reverse and award summary judgment to the losing party below.”
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.