Thomas Justin Orr v. Raymond E. Trinter’s Empirical Analysis
444 F.2d 128 · 1971
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), Newsom v. Norris (1989)
66 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 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 Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Greene v. McElroy · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Vitarelli v. Seaton
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * it is no longer open to debate that plaintiff would be entitled to relief if the board had refused to rehire him because he had exercised his rights as guaranteed by the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” Orr v. Trinter, swpra, at 134.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . [T]he very reason for the probationary period is to give the Board a chance to evaluate the teacher without making a commitment to rehire him. A non-tenured teacher’s interest in knowing the reasons for the non-renewal of his contract and in confronting the Board on those reasons is not sufficient to outweigh the interest of the Board in free and independent action with respect to the employment of probationary teachers. The Board is not a legal tribunal. It is an employer, and when it decides to hire or not to hire a particular teacher, it is acting ‘as a proprietor, to manage the internal operation’ of the public schools. Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers, Local No. 473 v. McElroy, supra, 367 U.S. 886 at 896 , 81 S.Ct. 1743 at 1749 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 . As was stated by Mr. Justice Brennan in his dissent in Nelson v. Los Angeles County, 362 U.S. 1, at 16 , 80 S.Ct. 527, at 535 , 4 L.Ed.2d 494 : “ ‘Doubtless a probationary employee can constitutionally be discharged without specification of reasons at all; and this Court has not held that it would offend the Due Process Clause, without more, for a State to put its entire civil service on such a basis, if as a matter of internal policy it could stand to do so.’ ” 444 F.2d 128, 134-135 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e emphasize that an essential feature of State teacher tenure laws is to require a teacher to serve a probationary period before attaining the rights of tenure. State statutes prescribe the rights of tenured teachers to written charges, public hearings and judicial review. The determination as to whether the quality of services of a particular teacher entitles him to continued employment beyond the probationary period, thereby qualifying him for tenure status, or whether his contract of employment should not be renewed prior to attainment of tenure status, is the prerogative of the employer, the Board of Education. 444 F.2d at 135 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.