Shimkus v. Hickner’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1437 (HOPE VI Program Reauthorization and Small Community Mainstreet Rejuvenation and Housing Act of 2003) · 42 U.S.C. § 1437A · 42 U.S.C. § 1437F · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Matters of public concern include speech that “relatfes] to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Rodgers, 344 F.3d at 596 (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684 ). Such speech calls attention to the functioning of government, misconduct of public employees or officials, or breaches of public trust. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 ; Rodgers, 344 F.3d at 596 Brandenburg, 253 F.3d at 898. However, mere mention of a public issue alone is not determinative of whether the speech is protected. When distinguishing public complaints about official misconduct from the “quintessential employee beef,” the court must examine the context in which it was made. The court of appeals summarized the task in Farhat : “our circuit has distilled the ‘public concern’ test by stating that the court must determine: the ‘focus’ of the speech; ‘the point of the speech in question’; ‘to what purpose the employee spoke’; ‘the intent of the speech’; or ‘the communicative purpose of the speaker.’ ” Farhat, 370 F.3d at 592 (citations omitted). Also, the court of appeals has noted, “even if a public employee were acting out of a private motive with no intent to air her speech publicly ... so long as the speech relates to matters of ‘political, social, or other concern to the community,’ as opposed to matters ‘only of personal interest,’ it shall be considered as touching upon matters of public concern.” Cockrel v. Shelby Cnty. Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1036”
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.