Dunn v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis
40 F.3d 287 · 1994
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Kincade v. City of Blue Springs (1995), Hafley v. Lohman (1996)
21 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Texas v. Johnson · Waters v. Churchill
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[W]hen a person does initially engage in protected ... speech on matters of a public concern, [he] may not use this protection ... to also level personal attacks on ... officials.” Smith v. Cleburne County Hosp., 870 F.2d 1375, 1383 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 847 , 110 S.Ct. 142 , 107 L.Ed.2d 100 (1989). When what started out as protected debate turns into “caustic personal attacks” against colleagues in a public service workplace, the speech is no longer deemed relevant to “a matter of public concern,” id. at 1382, and is therefore not protected under Connick [v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983).] Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“What one chooses to wear can communicate an expressive message to others.... Wearing a particular outfit or costume is non-verbal conduct that is protected as speech under the first amendment if it is intended to convey a "particularized message" and if the likelihood is great that the message will be understood by those who view it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burnham v. Ianni
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.