Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 566 F.3d 817 - Robinson v. York

Robinson v. York’s Empirical Analysis

566 F.3d 817 · 2009

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Mattos v. Agarano (2011), Dahlia v. Rodriguez (2013)

22 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

430200920102020decided

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

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 54 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.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]o find that the government's interest as an employer in a smoothly-running office outweighs an employee's first amendment right, defendants must demonstrate actual, material and substantial disruption, or reasonable predictions of disruption in the workplace.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the facts alleged show the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established”
    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.