Cua v. Ramos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Planning — Sets realistic goals and objectives; anticipates and prepares for future requirements; establishes logical priorities: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Leadership — Sets high standards; provides a good managerial example; delegates authority and responsibility effectively: NOT SATISFACTORY Subordinate Development — Helps subordinates in job development; gives guidance and counseling: NOT SATISFACTORY Human Relations — Establishes and maintains cordial work climate; promotes harmony; displays sincere interest in assisting employees: NOT SATISFACTORY Quantity of Work — Consider amount of work generated to amount of work expected for current job or position: NOT SATISFACTORY Quality of Work — Consider overall knowledge of duties and responsibilities and completeness and accuracy of work: MEETS REQUIREMENTS Use of Time — -Consider attendance; is punctual reporting to work; accomplishes required work on or ahead of schedule: NOT SATISFACTORY Initiative — -Consider amount of direction or supervision required and concern for consistency in trying to do better: NOT SATISFACTORY”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cua v. Ramos

2. ““The explanation given by the defendants for the non-satisfactory performance rating that they assigned to plaintiff is plain, unambiguous, and susceptible of but one interpretation. Therefore, whether the explanation was defamatory or not is a question of law, and it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to whether or not the explanation can constitute a libel. Since the tenor of the language is to charge plaintiff with being a wholly unfit, incompetent and undesirable state employee, the imputation was such as to injure plaintiff in her employment at Central State Hospital and in her profession as a physician and psychiatrist. Accordingly, I instruct you that the explanation that defendants attached to the performance report on plaintiff can constitute a libel as that term is defined in these instructions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cua v. Ramos

3. “1) Quanity [sic] of Work — Substandard for position. More concerned with who is doing less than she, rather than her own output. 3) Use of time — Poor. Spends much time in closed office and out of building. Often cannot be found when needed. Ward visits brief and not frequent enough. 4) Initiative — Requires frequent supervision and direction. Must be asked to do routine duties. 5) Planning — Generally waits till last minute to inform team of plans, especially absences. 6) Leadership — Rejects leadership role. Provides poor managerial example. Makes demands of others without willing to do own share. 7) Subordinate Development — Does nothing to enhance growth of her subordinates. 8) Human Relations — Very poor inter-personnal [sic] relationship with staff and peers. Has interest only in own personal concerns.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cua v. Ramos