Elmore v. Cleary’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 3 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...” Of course, in filing the instant lawsuit against the Township and its five-member governing Board of Supervisors, Plaintiff has invoked § 1983, which provides as follows in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, ... This statute "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 819 F. Supp. 2d 416 - Garcia v. Newtown Township · Neumeyer

2. “To have a property interest in a job . . . a person must have more than a unilateral expectation of continued employment; rather, she must have a legitimate entitlement to such continued employment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 447 F. Supp. 2d 438 - Barry v. Luzerne County · Wilson

3. “As an initial matter, state law determines whether such a property interest exists. Brown v. Trench, 787 F.2d 167, 170 (3d Cir.1986); see also Kelly v. Borough of Sayreville, N.J., 107 F.3d 1073, 1077 (3d Cir.1997) (“State law creates the property rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”). Here, under controlling Pennsylvania law, a “public employee takes his job subject to the possibility of summary removal by the employing authority. He is essentially an employee-at-will.” Scott v. Phila., Parking Auth., 402 Pa. 151 , 166 A.2d 278, 280 (1960); see also Rank v. Twp. of Annville, 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 492 , 641 A.2d 667, 670 (1994); Bolduc v. Bd. of Supervisors of Lower Paxton Twp., 152 Pa. Cmwlth. 248, 618 A.2d 1188, 1190 (1992). Stated otherwise, a public employee in Pennsylvania generally serves at the pleasure of her employer and thus has no legitimate entitlement to continued employment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 385 F. Supp. 2d 491 - Holocheck v. Luzerne County Head Start, Inc.