Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah County’s Empirical Analysis
556 F.3d 797 · 2009
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2021 · most notably LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka (2009), Dahlia v. Rodriguez (2013)
6 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Garcetti v. Ceballos · Board of County Commissioners Wabaunsee County Kansas v. Umbehr · City of San Diego v. Roe
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“could have relied only on speculation to reach its verdict.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, it is not clear that Scott relies on Brown’s role in bringing the journal to Fuller’s attention or her pártieipation in the administrative leave decision as alone sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding Brown liable for Scott’s termination. Even ■ if we consider those events, however, the evidence negates any inference that Fuller would not have taken any action against Scott but for Brown’s retaliatory motivations. The journal surfaced in a workplace investigation of possible employee misconduct, and several DCJ employees became aware of its existence contemporaneously with Brown. Brown was engaged in activities typical and appropriate for her position when she became aware of the journal. The journal itself was accidentally discovered during an investigation of another employee’s conduct, and Scott did not allege that Brown targeted her ■for investigation or selectively reported her misconduct. Brown was at most a part of a process that included several other employees who were focused on disciplining violations of workplace rules and policies. Given the numerous potential rules violations revealed in the journal and the actions taken by the human resources department, it is unreasonable to conclude that Fuller — who had al ready initiated the inquiry into another employee’s misuse of emails — would not have been informed of or reacted to the journal but for Brown’s animus against Scott. Given the evidence that .Fuller made an independent, principled decision”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Greisen v. Hanken“the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion, and the conclusion is contrary to that reached by the jury.”
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.