Piscottano v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. “An individual's association with an organization can be deemed to involve expression on a matter of public concern in either of two ways. First, the organization itself may engage in advocacy on a matter of public concern. If it does, the individual’s association with the organization may constitute, at least vicariously, expressive conduct on a matter of public concern. Second, even where the organization itself does not purport to engage in advocacy on matters of public concern, the individual's association with the organization may — although it does not necessarily — constitute approval or an endorsement of the nature and character of the organization. Such approval or endorsement itself would constitute expressive conduct on a matter of public concern if the nature or character of the organization is a matter of public concern.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murray v. Town of Stratford · 576 F. Supp. 2d 292 - Spanierman v. Hughes

2. “The question of what is a matter of public concern is not amenable to a simple, definitive answer. Nonetheless, Connick provides some guidance. It directs courts to examine the “content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record” in assessing whether an employee’s speech addresses a matter of public concern. ... In addition it notes that the standard for determining whether expression is of public concern is the same standard used to determine whether a common-law action for invasion of privacy is present .... that standard is established by our decisions in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 [ 95 S.Ct. 1029 , 43 L.Ed.2d 328 ] (1975) and Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 387-88 [ 87 S.Ct. 534 , 17 L.Ed.2d 456 ] (1967) These cases make clear that public concern is something that is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public at the time of publication.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 696 F. Supp. 2d 213 - Russell v. County of Nassau

3. “[W]e ask first whether the employee's expressive conduct was speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer's reaction to the speech.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Festa v. Westchester Med. Ctr. Health Network