Sowards v. Loudon County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. [Positions specifically named in relevant federal, state, county, or municipal law to which discretionary authority with respect to the enforcement of that law or the carrying out of some other policy of political concern is granted; 2. [P]ositions to which a significant portion of the total discretionary authority available to category one position-holders has been delegated; or positions not named in law, possessing by virtue of the jurisdiction’s pattern or practice the same quantum or type of discretionary authority commonly held by category one positions in other jurisdictions; 3. [Cjonfidential advisors who spend a significant portion of their time on the job advising category one or category two position-holders on how to exercise their statutory or delegated policymaking authority, or other confidential employees who control the lines of communications to category one positions, category two positions or confidential advisors; [and] 4. [Positions that are part of a group of positions filled by balancing out political party representation, or that are filled by balancing out selections made by different governmental agents or bodies.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Heggen v. Lee · Hager v. Pike County Board of Education

2. “(1) the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) there is a causal connection between elements one and two — that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiffs protected conduct.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cole v. Monroe County · 442 F. Supp. 2d 395 - Clark v. Alston

3. “In order to prevail on this claim, the plaintiffs must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: First, that the actions of the defendant were under color of the authority of the State of Tennessee. Second, that the plaintiffs engaged in constitutionally protected activity, a form of free speech as previously defined, by supporting a political opponent or failing to support the candidacy of the defendant. Third, that the defendant knew that the plaintiffs supported a political opponent or did not support his candidacy for sheriff. Fourth, that such political activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant’s decision to discharge the plaintiffs from employment. And fifth, that the defendant’s acts were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by the plaintiffs.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Van Huss v. Shoffner