Pool v. VanRheen’s Empirical Analysis
297 F.3d 899 · 2002
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Ulrich v. City & County of San Francisco (2002), Thomas v. City of Beaverton (2004)
17 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Rankin v. McPherson · Board of County Commissioners Wabaunsee County Kansas v. Umbehr
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 659A.030(l)(f) makes it unlawful: [f]or any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any oth er person because that other person has opposed any unlawful practice, or because that other person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter or has attempted to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“when it is clear that ... the information would be of no relevance to the public's evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the really big chunks always rise to the top”
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.