Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 F.3d 1040 - Selch v. Letts

Selch v. Letts’s Empirical Analysis

5 F.3d 1040 · 1993

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Lewis v. Cowen (1999), Selch v. Letts, Director, Indiana Department of Highways (1994)

24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2601993200020102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Elrod v. Burns · Branti v. Finkel · Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.

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

  1. “`authorizes, either directly or indirectly, meaningful input into government decisionmaking on issues where there is room for principled disagreement on goals or their implementation,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “For some, the mention of the phrase “political patronage” may conjure up distasteful and unpleasant thoughts of the party faithful being rewarded for an election victory with the “spoils” of government jobs. Nevertheless, the fact is the effective implementation of public policy sanctioned by the voters (and some say the survival of a viable two-party political system) depends on a newly elected administration placing politically loyal individuals in certain government positions. Of course, following the ouster of the “in party,” the initial aspect of the implementation of political patronage typically results in the “creation of vacancies” in the government work force.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “No clear line can be drawn between policymaking and nonpolicymaking positions. While nonpolicymaking individuals usually have limited responsibility, that is not to say that one with a number of responsibilities is necessarily in a policy-making position. The nature of the responsibilities is critical. Employee supervisors, for example, may have many responsibilities, but those responsibilities may have only limited and well-defined objectives. An employee with responsibilities that are not well-defined or are of broad scope more likely functions in a policymaking position.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.