Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 507 F.2d 980 - Cusumano v. Ratchford

Cusumano v. Ratchford’s Empirical Analysis

507 F.2d 980 · 1974

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
6
states following
January 2002
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 2002 · most notably Howard University v. Best (1984), Beitzell v. Jeffrey (1981)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

1601974198019902000decided

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

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Perry v. Sindermann · Jeroyd W. Greene v. Howard University, a Corporation, Nathan Hare v. Howard University, a Corporation · Jones v. Hopper

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

  1. ““Plaintiffs would read ‘should’ in the quoted sentence as ‘must’ and conclude therefrom that since notices were not given (as they ‘must’ have been) during ‘the penultimate year of their maximum probationary periods in the school year 1969-1970’ they had a ‘a property right. . .’ “The Statement of Principles, it is clear, was not intended by its promulgators to be a binding legal document. The procedures of the.disputed section 2 are stated to represent ‘acceptable’, not obligatory, ‘academic practice.’ “The function of the principles, it has been said, is to serve as ‘merely norms by which the profession can judge academic practices which have become the subject of complaints.’ “Section 2 of the Statment of Principles, we conclude, is not mandatory, it is not inconsistent with the university’s regulations, and furnishes no support for plaintiffs’ assertions of de facto tenure.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Academic Tenure * * * * * (1) The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and teacher before the appointment is consummated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers ... should have permanent or continuous tenure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.