Quigley v. Rosenthal’s Empirical Analysis
327 F.3d 1044 · 2003
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably 221 Ill. 2d 558 - Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co. (2006), Ecclesiastes 9:10-11-12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co. (2007)
26 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Connick v. Myers · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Salve Regina College v. Russell · Smith v. Wade
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Mjost importantly, [the defendants] were intimately familiar with [the facts surrounding the allegations of discrimination]. Unlike a third-party (e.g., newspaper reporter) unfamiliar with the parties to a lawsuit or its underlying facts, [the defendants] were in a position to know, and indeed knew or should have known, that the allegations in the ... lawsuit were baseless. Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that [the plaintiffs'] comments at the press conference and on the radio show involved matters of "public concern” since [they] knew or should have known ... the ... allegations of racial discrimination/harassment were not colorable. See Kemp v. State Bd. of Agric., 803 P.2d 498 , 504 (Colo.1990) (“When an employee alleges a colorable claim that a university is guilty of racial discrimination, it is a matter of public con cern.”) (emphasis added); see generally Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 , 135, 99 S.Ct. 2675 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979) ("those charged with defamation cannot, by their own conduct, create their own defense”); Snead v. Redland Aggregates, Ltd., 998 F.2d 1325 , 1330 (5th Cir.1993) ("A speaker cannot turn his speech into a matter of public concern simply by issuing a press release.”). We agree with the district court that the statements made by [the plaintiffs] at the press conference and during the radio show did not involve matters of public concern.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although it is clear that the interception of the Quigleys’ telephone conversations would constitute an intentional intrusion on the Quigleys’ seclusion or solitude, the issue raised by defendants is whether, as set forth in the district court’s instructions, the “use” of intercepted telephone conversations can also constitute such an intrusion. We conclude the answer to this question is “no.” In particular, once the interception of the conversations was complete, any subsequent “use” of the conversations could not have resulted in any additional intrusion on the Quigleys’ seclusion or solitude. Certainly, the “use” of such conversations might have resulted in another type of invasion of privacy, i.e., unreasonable publicity given to another’s private life. But no such claim was assert ed in this case. We therefore conclude that the district court committed plain error in instructing the jury on plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy by intrusion claims, and that such error warrants a reversal of the judgment on those claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the context within which [the employee’s] letter arose was one in which she had a personal stake, it was nevertheless a context in which charges of racial discrimination had been filed. The very purpose of the grievance was to address alleged discrimination, which the grievance manual defines as any act or policy that violates any of a multitude of state and federal anti-discrimination laws, all of which are public matters. Moreover, the form of the speech — a letter to a United States senator, only lends credence to the argument that the speech touched on a matter of public concern. When an employee alleges a colorable claim that a university is guilty of racial discrimination, it is a matter of public concern, and the fact that she has a personal stake in the outcome does not alchemize that claim into a purely private matter in which the public has no interest.”
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.