Rev. P. P. Burt, Appelle’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
7 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably Tedesco v. City of Stamford (1991), 221 Cal. App. 3d 1072 - Bullock v. City and County of San Francisco (1990)
7 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Monroe v. Pape · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Carey v. Piphus · Hutto v. Finney
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On remand, plaintiff will therefore be eligible for an award of attorney’s fees for services dating from Mrs. Burt’s suit against the Board of Trustees (a) if he continues to prevail on the merits, and (b) if the district court determines, in its discretion, that such award is appropriate. The fact that plaintiff may prevail on the merits yet, under Carey, recover only nominal damages shall in no way diminish his eligibility for attorney’s fees under § 1988, though it is one of the factors properly to be considered on the amount of such award.” ( 585 F.2d at 617-618 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t appears to us that a discharge from municipal employment is quite clearly an official action where, as here, the discharging body is authorized by the municipality to make such decisions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Horton v. Orange County Board of Education, 464 F. 2d 536 (4 Cir. 1972), we held that, where an employee is dismissed without being accorded procedural due process but where the dismissal is subsequently determined by a court to have been for just cause, the employee is not entitled to actual reinstatement but may recover an award of back pay for that period between the date of discharge and the date of the subsequent court decision. Constructive reinstatement for that period during which the dismissal was unlawful was deemed by us to be the appropriate remedy for constitutional defects in the discharge procedure. This was the relief granted Mrs. Burt by the district court in Burt I. [Id. at 615 (footnote omitted).]”
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.