Farkas v. Thornburgh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 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. “A political firing violates the interdiction of the First Amendment only when the employing authority dismisses an employee “solely for political reasons”. Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. at 530 , 100 S.Ct. at 1301 ; Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 350 , 96 S.Ct. 2678 . In other words, an independent justification coupled with a constitutionally flawed reason will not taint the Secretary’s decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment. Farkas v. Thornburgh, 493 F.Supp. 1168 at 1174 . (Emphasis in original.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McMullan v. Thornburgh · Sands v. Starke County Board of Commissioners

2. “Initially, in this case, the burden was properly placed upon respondent to show that his conduct was constitutionally protected, and that this conduct was a ‘substantial factor’— or to put it in other words, that it was a ‘motivating factor’ in the Board’s decision not to rehire. Respondent having carried that burden, however, the District Court should have gone on to determine whether the Board had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision as to respondent’s reemployment even in the absence of the protected conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 537 F. Supp. 858 - Abraham v. Pekarski