Weaver v. Chavez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker's duties, or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Deschenie v. Board of Education of Central Consolidated School District No. 22 · Bailey v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 69 of Canadian Cnty. Okla.

2. “the manner, time, and place of the speech, as well as the context in which the dispute arose.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Deschenie v. Board of Education of Central Consolidated School District No. 22 · Bailey v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 69 of Canadian Cnty. Okla.

3. “First, the court must determine whether the employee speaks pursuant to [his] official duties. If the employee speaks pursuant to his official duties, then there is no constitutional protection because the restriction on speech simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created. 20 Second, if an employee does not speak pursuant to his official duties, but instead speaks as a citizen, the court must determine whether the subject of the speech is a matter of public concern. If the speech is not a matter of public concern, then the speech is unprotected and the inquiry ends. Third, if the employee speaks as a citizen on a matter of public concern, the court must determine whether the employee’s interest in commenting on the issue outweighs the interest of the state as employer. Fourth, assuming the employee’s interest outweighs that of the employer, the employee must show that his speech was a substantial factor or a motivating factor in [a] detrimental employment decision. Finally, if the employee establishes that his speech was such a factor, the employer may demonstrate that it would have taken the same' action against the employee even in the absence of the protected speech.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 557 F. Supp. 2d 1293 - Hindman v. Thompson