412 F. Supp. 910 - Sprague v. Fitzpatrick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “. Pickering’s attacks were on a remote superintendent and school board; in contrast, Roseman’s called into question the integrity of the person immediately in charge of running a department which, it is fair to assume, was more intimate than a school district. The district court found that “plaintiff’s attacks upon Faust’s integrity in a faculty meeting would undoubtedly have the effect of interfering with harmonious relationships with plaintiff’s superiors and co-workers.” [Roseman v. Hassler, D. C.], 382 F.Supp. [1328], at 1339. In making this finding, the district court reflected a similar concern expressed by the Supreme Court, which noted that Pickering’s statements were “in no way directed towards any person with whom [Pickering] would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher.” Pickering, supra, 391 U.S. at 569-70 , 88 S.Ct. at 1735 . Because of this, Pickering’s case raised “no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or harmony among co-workers.” Id. at 570 , 88 S.Ct. at 1735 . The same obviously cannot be said of Roseman’s faculty meeting accu sations directed at the Acting Chairman of her Department [footnote omitted]. Id. at 1368-69.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 440 F. Supp. 887 - Lewis v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

2. “The statements are in no way directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate supervisors or harmony among co-workers is presented here. Appellant’s employment relationships with the Board and, to a somewhat lesser extent, with the superintendent, are not the kind of close working relationships for which it can persuasively be claimed that personal loyalty and confidence are necessary to their proper functioning.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perrine v. Montone