Fuentes v. Roher’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.2d 379 · 1975
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Ellis v. Blum (1981), Patsy v. Florida International University (1981)
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 7324 · 5 U.S.C. § 7501
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“coextensive with the merits of the plaintiff's constitutional claim,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jose P. v. Gordon M. Ambach, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Frank J. MacChiarola Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. United Cerebral Palsy of N.Y.C., Inc. v. Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Gordon M. Ambach, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. Dyrcia S. v. Board of Education, New York State Education Department · 239 F. Supp. 2d 242 - Branch v. Guilderland Central School District“This case presents the all-too-familiar situation in which a dispute, commonplace in the private sector, becomes constitutional litigation by virtue of the fact that public employers (the school boards) are involved, rather than private entities, and the plaintiffs are, therefore, able to turn a problem of labor relations into a constitutional issue. Mindful of the undesirability of becoming entangled in the operation of local school systems, we nevertheless must address this case in a constitutional, rather than a private-law, framework. Despite its constitutional gilding, however, this case involves us in the ‘unwelcome’ task of ‘meddling in an intramural fray’ among teachers . . . and their board of education employers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“initiated the charges ..., appointed a lawyer to prosecute them ..., provided at least some of the evidence relevant to their determination, and will ultimately pass on the examiner's recommendation,”
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.