Andrew v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Garcetti v. Ceballos · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. Sullivan · Edwards v. City of Goldsboro
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.
“Pickering and the cases decided in its wake identify two inquiries to guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer’s reaction to the speech. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. The question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. This consideration reflects the importance of the relationship between the speaker’s expressions and employment. A government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its role as employer, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Andrew v. Clark“[t]he gravamen of plaintiffs claim seems to be that when he elected to “go public” by handing a copy of his “internal memorandum” to a representative of the media, he converted what is undeniably speech effected pursuant to his employ- merit duties into “citizen speech” on a “matter of public concern.” I can find nothing in Garcetti or in the more persuasively-reasoned cases that have interpreted Garcetti to support this view, that the Supreme Court’s plain intention to carve out an enclave of unprotected speech by public employees is so limited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Andrew v. Clark
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.