Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 F.2d 1090 - Rampey v. Allen

Rampey v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

501 F.2d 1090 · 1974

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
March 1996
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 1996

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

110197419801990decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments)

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Baker v. Carr

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

  1. “[w]hile a college president is entitled to respect and authority within his sphere, this does not extend to the exercise of absolute control over the associations and expressions of the faculty members. Whether they demonstrate loyalty to him personally, whether they relate to him personally and whether they have a similar philosophy is not, as we view it, a requisite and he cannot demand such attitudes at the expense of the individual rights of the faculty members and there can be little question but that such demands infringe the rights of the faculty members to express legitimate views in the course of formulating ideas in an academic atmosphere.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs, as enunciated in such decisions as [Perry v.] Sindermann [ 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972)] and Pickering, supra, were violated by terminating plaintiffs on account of disapproved associations, or disapproval of statements made, or on account of President Carter’s disagreement with, plaintiffs’ philosophies, or his beliefs that plaintiffs lived in a different world from his[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the plaintiffs were fired for having failed to refrain from associating with their colleagues and for having failed to associate with President Carter. Thus, we conclude that, in exercising their right to freely associate with others and to criticize the administration of the school (notwithstanding that such criticism ivas justifiable) and in refusing to submit to the exercise of control over them, the plaintiffs were fired.”
    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.