Allen v. Iranon’s Empirical Analysis
283 F.3d 1070 · 2002
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Coszalter v. City of Salem (2003), Spiegla v. Hull (2004)
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Davidson v. Cannon
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Allen had worked at Halawa for years, during which he was involved in several disputes over security, without his performance being found deficient enough to warrant discipline or an Internal Affairs investigation. After he began to criticize the prison under Hall’s administration, his conduct was found to be so serious that it warranted Internal Affairs investigations and a lockout. This proximity in time constitutes circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive. The protected statement was made eleven months before the first lockout and the initiation of the Internal Affairs investigations. Although an inference from temporal proximity would have been stronger had the gap in time been smaller, an eleven-month gap in time is within the range that has been found to support an inference that an employment decision was retaliatory.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) proximity in time between the protected speech and the alleged retaliation; (2) the employer's expressed opposition to the speech; and (3) other evidence that the reasons proffered by the employer for the adverse employment action were false and pretextual.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Greisen v. Hanken · Brown v. Hawaii“`This standard is significantly deferential, and we will accept the lower court's findings of fact unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'”
3 later decisions 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.