Brochu v. City of Riviera Beach’s Empirical Analysis
304 F.3d 1144 · 2002
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. Brown (2006), Jackson v. Alabama State Tenure Commission (2005)
20 federal appellate · 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Rankin v. McPherson
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Since the Pickering [v. Board of Educ. , 391 U.S. 563 (1968),] decision, a four-stage analysis has evolved for examining these types of cases involving a public employee's exercise of First Amendment rights. At the first stage, the trial judge must determine the threshold legal question of whether the employee's speech may be `fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern.' Rankin [v. McPherson ], 483 U.S. [378,] at 384, 107 S.Ct. 2891 [(1987)] (quoting Connick v. Myers , 461 U.S. 138 , 146 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983)). This involves an examination of the content, form, and context of the speech. Rankin , 483 U.S. at 384 -85 , 107 S.Ct. 2891 . If that threshold is established, the trial judge proceeds to the second stage and applies the Pickering balancing test, weighing the interests of the public employee against the interest of the public employer, again considering the context and circumstances of the employee's speech. Id. at 388, 107 S.Ct. 2891 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Only if [the first] two stages are satisfied does the matter go to the fact-finder, i.e., the jury, for a determination of whether the speech which the court has identified as protected played a substantial part in the employment decision. Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle , 429 U.S. 274 , 287 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). If so, then the employer must prove that it would have reached the same decision `even in the absence of the protected [speech].' Id. This fourth stage is sometimes called the `but for' test. To satisfy this test, the employer must show that `its legitimate reason, standing alone, would have induced it to make the same decision.' Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins , 490 U.S. 228 , 252 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989)."”
1 later decision 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.