Danno v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably Patkus v. Sangamon-Cass Consortium (1985), Dennis v. S & S Consolidated Rural High School District (1978)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Perry v. Sindermann · Paul v. Davis · Bishop v. Wood · Goss v. Lopez
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Certainly there is no suggestion in Roth to indicate that a hearing would be required each time the State in its capacity as employer might be considered responsible for a statement defaming an employee who continues to be an employee”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Second, in Danno the district court stated: The plaintiff in this action may well wish to seek other employment opportunities, however, he is still employed by the defendant school board. Whatever stigma may have been inflicted by the board in the allegedly defamatory remarks is greatly diminished by the simultaneous action of assigning him to the position of teacher and continuing his employment in that significant capacity ... the alleged stigma is minimized by his continued employment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“9 9 Contractual continued service status shall not restrict the power of the board to transfer a teacher to a position which the teacher is qualified to fill or to make such salary adjustments as it deems desirable, but unless reductions in salary are uniform or based upon some reasonable classification, any teacher whose salary is reduced shall be entitled to a notice and a hearing as hereinafter provided in the case of certain dismissals or removals. # # # ””
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.