Bechtel v. City of Belton’s Empirical Analysis
250 F.3d 1157 · 2001
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Davison v. City of Minneapolis (2007), Jones v. Fitzgerald (2002)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Connick v. Myers · Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati · City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik · Owen v. City of Independence
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defined another way, an adverse employment action must effectuate 'a material change in the terms or conditions of . . . employment.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an 7 In their motion for summary judgment the defendants concede that LaForge was engaged in protected expression, and they do not challenge the balancing of interests element. In their reply to LaForge's objection to summary judgment, however, the defendants recede from their concession and argue that LaForge's expression was not protected. LaForge moved to strike the defendants' reply. In a separate order that will issue on this date, the court has granted LaForge's motion in part and strikes the defendants' protected expression argument as raised in its reply. 15 actionable adverse action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“. “Although ‘actions short of termination may constitute adverse actions ... ’, ‘not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action.’ ” Montandon v. Farmland Industries, Inc., 116 F.3d 355, 359 (8th Cir.1997) (discussing an unlawful retaliation claim in the context of Title VII) (quoting Smith v. St. Louis University, 109 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir.1997); Smart v. Ball State University, 89 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir.1996)). To constitute an adverse employment action, “the action must have some adverse impact” on the employee. Id.... Defined another way, an adverse employment action must effectuate “a material change in the terms or conditions of ... employment.” Ledergerber v. Stangler, 122 F.3d 1142, 1144 (8th Cir.1997) (discussing adverse employment actions in the context of a retaliation claim brought along with a Title VII claim); see also Harlston v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 37 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir.1994) (no prima facie case is made where changes in duties or working conditions cause no.materially significant disadvantage to establish an adverse employment action).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.