Morgan v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
6 F.3d 750 · 1993
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 179 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Angie Chesser v. Amos Sparks (2001), David Hipp Brad Stein v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co (2001)
59 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Rankin v. McPherson
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 179 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“concern. In essence, we must determine the purpose of the employee's speech, that is,”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the employee’s speech involves a matter of public concern, (2) whether the employee’s interest in speaking outweighs the government’s legitimate interest in efficient public service, (3) whether the speech played a substantial part in the government’s challenged employment decision, and (4) whether the government would have made the same employment decision in the absence of the protected conduct.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Plaintiff] did not relate her concerns about sexual harassment to the public, or attempt to involve the public in any manner. [Plaintiffs] expressions in no way drew the public at large or its concerns into the picture. The record shows that [plaintiffs] speech was driven by her own entirely rational self-interest in improving the conditions of her employment.... As an employee grievance, [plaintiffs] speech was not a matter of public concern.”
4 later decisions 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.