Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 368 F.3d 657 - McGreal v. Ostrov

McGreal v. Ostrov’s Empirical Analysis

368 F.3d 657 · 2004

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Santiago v. Warminster Township (2010), Spiegla v. Hull (2004)

28 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

350200420102020decided

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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati · Duncan v. Walker

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

  1. “(1) whether the speech would create problems in maintaining discipline or harmony among co-workers; (2) whether the employment relationship is one in which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary; (3) whether the speech impeded the employee’s ability to perform [his] responsibilities; (4) the time, place, and manner of the speech; (5) the context within which the underlying dispute arose; (6) whether the matter was one on which debate was vital to informed decision-making; and (7) whether the speaker should be regarded as a member of the general public.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) an express policy, that, when enforced, causes a constitutional deprivation; (2) a widespread practice that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a “custom or usage” with the force of law; or (3) an allegation that the constitutional injury was caused by a person with final policymaking authority.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “'Summary judgment is notoriously inappropriate for determination of claims in which issues of intent, good faith and other subjective feelings play dominant roles.'”
    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.