Sindermann v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Summary Judgment should be granted only when the truth is clear, where the basic facts are undisputed and the parties are not in disagreement regarding material factual inferences that may be properly drawn from such facts.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Crystal City v. Del Monte Corp. · Alfredo G. Parrish, Etc. v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, Etc., Alabama Black Lawyers Association v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, Etc.

2. ““Equally unpersuasive is the related argument that since there is no constitutional right to public employment, school officials only allowed these teachers’ contracts to expire, and thus they cannot be liable for a violation of any rights protected by § 1983. But in the posture of this case this misconceives the whole thrust of their claim. The right sought to be vindicated is not a contractual one, nor could it be since no right to reemployment existed. What is at stake is the vindication of constitutional rights— the right not to be punished by the State or to suffer retaliation at its hand because a public employee persists in the exercise of First Amendment rights.” 415 F.2d at 856.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chitwood v. Feaster · 336 F. Supp. 1255 - Wolfe v. O'NEILL

3. “On the other hand, if the court resolves that Sindermann did not have an expectancy of reemployment which would require the college to show cause for the decision not to renew his contract, a different procedure would be indicated. In such a situation, upon receipt of notice that a new contract will not be offered, the teacher must bear the burden both of initiating the proceedings and of proving that a wrong has been done by the collegiate action in not rehiring him. It is incumbent upon such a teacher, not the college, to shoulder these responsibilities because the college may base its decision not to reemploy a teacher without tenure or a contractual expectancy of reemployment upon any reason or upon no reason at all.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 426 F. Supp. 950 - Hamm v. Scott