Lee v. Walstad’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2021
1 district · 13 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 Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Arnett v. Kennedy · 113 Wis. 2d 561 - Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet · Mini Mart, Inc. v. City of Minot · Blomquist v. Clague
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The distinction between those positions in which the employee is given some protection and those `at will' positions are significant because in a recent decision, Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.3d 494 (1985), a majority of the United States Supreme Court held that where a statute plainly supports the conclusion that an employee possesses a property right in continued employment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that before the employee may be denied that property right he must have notice and an opportunity to respond prior to a determination as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Lee has defined no clear public policy which his removal violates. Thus, were we inclined to adopt a public-policy exception to the terminable ‘at will’ rule in an appropriate case, we do not do so in this case. See Wadeson v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 343 N.W.2d 367 (N.D.1984), in which we were urged to adopt an ‘independent consideration’ exception to the terminable ‘at will’ rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A writ of mandamus will not lie ... unless the plaintiff's legal right to the performance of the particular act sought to be compelled by the writ is clear and complete, and we will reverse the trial court’s denial of a writ of mandamus only if, as a matter of law, such writ should issue or there is a finding that the trial court has abused its discretion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.