Grabinger v. Conlisk’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Gilty v. Village of Oak Park (1990), Kiddie v. Kiddie (1977)
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Gault · Bell v. Hood · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Mempa v. Rhay
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not the law that a public employer, in the course of a disciplinary hearing into an employee's conduct, may not require an employee to disclose information reasonably related to his fitness for continued employment. The net of Garrity [ 385 U.S. 493 , 87 S.Ct. 616 , 17 L.Ed.2d 562 ], Broderick [ 392 U.S. 273 , 88 S.Ct. 1913 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 ] and Uniformed Sanitation Men [ 392 U.S. 280 , 88 S.Ct. 1917 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1089 ] is that if a public employee refuses to testify as to a matter concerning which his employer is entitled to inquire, he may be discharged for insubordination, but if he does testify his answers may not be used against him in a subsequent criminal proceeding. The plaintiffs, therefore, were not compelled to waive their constitutional right against self-incrimination as a condition to their continued public employment. 320 F. Supp. at 1217-1218 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a claim is alleged to arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the federal district court must entertain the suit except when the alleged claim appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where it is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the mere requirement of submission by a police officer to a polygraph examination during the course of a preliminary investigation concerning complaints about the officer's official conduct does not violate his guarantee to procedural due process. 320 F. Supp. at 1221 .”
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.