Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 454 F.3d 174 - Heller v. Fulare

Heller v. Fulare’s Empirical Analysis

454 F.3d 174 · 2006

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
February 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Montgomery v. Philadelphia · Brown v. Grabowski · Matson v. Margiotti · Kulwicki v. Dawson · Jonnet v. Bodick

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

  1. “The memo is consistent with the police manual that the Board adopted some years earlier. 7 Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Fulare in the District Court alleging federal constitutional violations of the Due Process Clause and retaliatory actions contrary to the First Amendment. In addition, an amended complaint included a count for defamation under state law. 8 Fulare moved for dismissal of the defamation count on the grounds of absolute immunity based on state law. The District Court recognized that, under Pennsylvania jurisprudence, a township supervisor is considered a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “policy with respect to communications between supervisors and the police department. In a memorandum of March 23, 2004 addressed to the township manager, the Board wrote that it would communicate its directives on police matters to the manager who would convey them to the police officers. In turn, the officers were to report their concerns to the chief who would pass them on to the manager who would then contact the Board. The memorandum from the Board stated that it would”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “9 The court observed that the improprieties asserted in connection with the employment of the new police chief were attributable to an outside agency that had administered the test and, as such, were not properly related to township business and thus not within the scope of Fulare's authority. The District Court further concluded, however, that if the alleged improprieties were matters of township concern, Fulare's activities violated the township's”
    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.