Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 552 F.3d 1062 - Eng v. Cooley

Eng v. Cooley’s Empirical Analysis

552 F.3d 1062 · 2009

Citation profile

133
cited by 133 later decisions
2
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 22 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Bryan v. MacPherson (2010), Dahlia v. Rodriguez (2013)

45 federal appellate · 22 district · 2 state decisions

1010200920102020decided

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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · 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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) whether the plaintiff spoke on a matter of public concern; (2) whether the plaintiff spoke as a private citizen or public employee; (3) whether the plaintiffs protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action; (4) whether the state had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from other members of the general public; and (5) whether the state would have taken the adverse employment action even absent the protected speech.”
    27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[s]peech by public employees may be characterized as not of `public concern' when it is clear that such speech deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that the information would be of no relevance to the public's evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Speech involves a matter of public concern when it can fairly be considered to relate to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.