Johnson v. Ganim’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 20 district ·

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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n order to establish a First Amendment claim of retaliation as a public employee, [a plaintiff] must show that (l)[his] speech addressed a matter of public concern, (2)[he] suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection existed between the speech and the adverse employment action. Whether speech addresses a matter of public concern is a question of law to be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 364 F. Supp. 2d 204 - Radolf v. University of Connecticut · 358 F. Supp. 2d 6 - Mangiafico v. Blumenthal

2. “(1) the employer's prediction of the disruption that such speech will cause is reasonable; (2) the potential for disruption outweighs the value of the speech; and (3) the employer took the adverse employment action not in retaliation for the employee's speech, but because of the potential for disruption.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 853 F. Supp. 2d 364 - Campanella v. County of Monroe · Gill v. Pidlypchak

3. “Though the qualified immunity inquiry is generally an objective one, a defendant's subjective intent is indeed relevant in motive-based constitutional torts such as the one alleged by [plaintiff].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Mihos v. Swift · Mihos v. Swift