Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
502 F.2d 512 · 1974
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably Egger v. Phillips (1983), Lincoln v. Board of Regents of the University System (1983)
51 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 5 U.S.C. § 5596 · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clearly demonstrate that the employee's conduct substantially interferes with the discharge of duties and responsibilities inherent, in (governmental) employment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[t]he theory that public employment which may be denied altogether may be subjected to any conditions, regardless how unreasonable, has been uniformly rejected” ... At the same time, it cannot be gainsaid that the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general. The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“was merely a technical flaw and not a basis for denying jurisdiction in the district court”
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.