Sharp v. Lindsey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “41 See also Fulks v. Watson, 2001 WL 673573 , (Tenn.Ct.App.2001). 42 Applying White and Kendall here, we conclude that Mr. Sharp had a protected property interest in his position as principal by reason of his principal employment contract. The contours of that interest depend, of course, on the terms of the contract. 43 The introductory sentence of Mr. Sharp's contract reads as follows:”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 353 F. Supp. 3d 651 - Smock v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Mich. · Sharp v. Lindsey

2. “I want to express my appreciation for your efforts in revising the Gibbs High dress code. I hope that you do not feel that your efforts were in vain. After I met with your group, I made a couple of minor changes in wording, and added a statement from our current code concerning words and pictures of poor taste. This code was submitted to interim superintendent, Roy Mullins, in mid-June. At that time, I asked Mr. Mullins to let me know if this policy could be supported by the school board and administration. 11 We began to receive calls immediately. I defended the policy every time, calling it legal, reasonable, and enforceable. If you followed the articles in the Knoxville News Sentinel written by David Keim, you will understand that we received no support from the 8th district school board member or the new superintendent. [The school board's] Mr. Hunley was quoted on three occasions as saying that the policy was `unreasonable.' Dr. Lindsey called it illegal. The July 29 News-Sentinel has an article which disputes both claims. 12 Mr. Taylor was directed to revise the revised code and submit it to the superintendent. His initial revision was rejected and his final revision was changed. 13 I have always accepted the decision of a diverse committee when charged with such a responsibility. I still support your decision. 14 I do regret the negative publicity for the school and community.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sharp v. Lindsey

3. “The August 3 letter was addressed only to the members of the dress code committee. Sharp used school stationery and wrote the letter in his capacity as principal. The letter criticized his direct supervisor, and characterized Lindsey's and the School Board's actions with potentially misleading generality. As for the content, Sharp's letter did not seek to bring to light wrongdoing or a breach of the public's trust. Sharp has admitted his primary purpose in writing the letter was to thank the dress code committee for their services and dismiss them. The letter does not comment on the dress code debate so much as it comments upon Sharp's relationship with the board members and his superior. When viewed in context, the letter resembles an employee's complaints about his superiors' actions and Sharp's own responsibilities more than a citizen's attempts to add to the public debate over the dress code controversy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sharp v. Lindsey