Myers v. Hasara’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sheila Ritchie v. Glidden Company Ici Paints World-Group Graco · Peso Chavez v. The Illinois State Police

2. “In Hulbert v. Wilhelm, 120 F.3d 648, 653 (7th Cir.1997), we re-stated the Pickering analysis as a three-part inquiry, although still addressing the core concern identified in Pickering . We held that the first part of Pickering sought to determine (1) whether the speech would be protected if uttered by a private citizen and (2) whether the speech was more than an unprotected “personal employee grievance.” Hulbert, 120 F.3d at 653 . If so, then we would consider the speech to meet the test for speech by a citizen on a matter of public concern. See id. A number of factors are relevant to this analysis including the content, form and context of the remarks, see Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , and whether the remarks can fairly be characterized as relating to issues of “political, social, or other concern to the community.” Id. at 146 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 . ... It is important to good government that public employees be free to expose misdeeds and illegality in their departments. Protecting such employees from unhappy government officials lies at the heart of the Pickering cases, and at the core of the First Amendment. For example, in Marshall v. Porter County Plan Commission, 32 F.3d 1215, 1218 (7th Cir.1994), the plaintiff, an employee in the building inspector’s office, told the county planning commission that required inspections were not being done and provided a list showing that half of the required inspections had not been performed. The commission took no acti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 163 F. Supp. 2d 1006 - Hensley v. Jasper Police Department

3. “The Supreme Court has long held that a public employee maintains a First Amendment right to speak out on matters of public concern even though she works for the government. See Pickering, 391 U.S. 563, 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968); see also Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). A public employee can be punished for exercising that right only if the facts of the case, as reasonably known to the employer, indicate that the employer’s interest in promoting efficiency of public services outweighs the employee’s interest in free speech. See Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 668 , 114 S.Ct. 1878 , 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994); Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 . Courts after Pickering have engaged in a two-part analysis to determine whether the “interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern” outweighed the “interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 163 F. Supp. 2d 1006 - Hensley v. Jasper Police Department