Abramson v. Pataki’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 8 district ·

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

1. “a protectable property interest may arise in a situation where an employee may be removed only for cause. Indeed, in this circuit, a person may possess a protected interest in public employment if contractual or statutory provisions guarantee continued employment absent ‘sufficient cause’ for discharge or he can prove a de facto system of tenure.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 639 F. Supp. 2d 240 - Chisholm v. Ramia · Abramson v. Pataki

2. “[The] “stigma-plus” standard ... demands that the plaintiffs establish 1) that they were defamed, and 2) that the defamation ... was coupled with a deprivation of a legal right or status. To show defamation, the plaintiffs must show that the statements complained of were false; that they stigmatized the plaintiffs; and that they were publicized.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 161 F. Supp. 3d 284 - Filteau v. Prudenti · 341 F. Supp. 2d 126 - Levesque v. Town of Vernon

3. “Memorandum of Understanding shall apply so long as the undersigned unions represent employees working at the Center and will only be reopened, modified or terminated in whole or in part upon the written consent of the Center and the affected union or unions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Abramson v. Pataki