Cato v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
539 F.2d 656 · 1976
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently May 1996 · most notably In Re James R. Ahlers and Mary M. Ahlers, Debtors. James R. Ahlers and Mary M. Ahlers v. Norwest Bank Worthington and Federal Land Bank, in Re James R. Ahlers and Mary M. Ahlers, Debtors. Norwest Bank Worthington, N.A. v. James R. Ahlers and Mary M. Ahlers (1986), Hogue v. Clinton (1986)
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Perry v. Sindermann · Withrow v. Larkin · Tobacco Institute, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Lefkowitz v. Newsome
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“80-1246. Request for and conduct of hearing relative to termination or dismissal of teacher. — Any teacher who is dismissed or terminated, or whose contract is not renewed for the next academic year, and who is noti fied thereof by the school board in the manner prescribed by law, may file a written request with the board for a hearing. Such written request for a hearing shall be sent by certified mail to the president of the school board, with a copy to the superintendent, within thirty (30) days after the written notice of dismissal or termination of contract is received by the teacher. The hearing before the school board shall be conducted in accordance with the following provisions: (a) The hearing shall take place not less than five (5), nor more than ten (10) days after the written request therefor has been served on the school board, except that the teacher and the school board may, in writing, agree to a postponement of such hearing to a date agreed to by the school board and the teacher. (b) The hearing shall be private unless the school board or the teacher shall request that the hearing be public, in which case a public hearing shall be held at the request of the school board or the teacher. (c) The teacher and the school board may be represented by legal counsel. (d) It shall not be necessary that a full record of the proceedings at the hearing be made and preserved unless: (1) The school board shall elect to make and preserve a record of the hearing, at its own e”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clark v. Mann · Rogers v. Masem“Nonrenewal of a teaching contract alone does not constitute a deprivation of an interest in liberty. If, however, the reasons for nonrenewal are announced publicly or are incorporated into a record made available to prospective employers, the reasons may affect a teacher’s chances of securing another job. In this case, the record indicates that the reasons for the nonrenewal of appellant’s contract were not publicized by the board nor incorporated into any employment record. The board informed appellant of the reasons for nonrenewal in a confidential letter and did not publicly announce those reasons. It was only at appellant’s request that public hearings were held, where the circumstances surrounding and the reasons for nonrenewal became public information. Such disclosure of the reasons for nonrenewal at the teacher’s request cannot form the basis for an interest in liberty, (cites/footnote omitted.) Id. at 660 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Deprivation of an interest in liberty occurs where nonretention of the teacher imposes upon him a stigma or other disability foreclosing his future employment opportunities or resulting in significant damage to his standing and associations in the community.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clark v. Mann
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.