Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 616 F.2d 1165 - Serna v. Manzano

Serna v. Manzano’s Empirical Analysis

616 F.2d 1165 · 1980

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
June 2009
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co. (1988), Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc. (1987)

31 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

260198019902000decided

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 Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Elrod v. Burns · Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc. · Euler v. Waller

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When a trial court refuses to award costs to the prevailing party, it should state its reasons for such disallowance. Unless an appellate court knows why a trial court refused to award costs to the prevailing party, it has no real basis upon which to judge whether the trial court acted within the proper confines of its discretion. Walters v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 557 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1977).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'balancing' between the right of a public employee to freely comment, believe and associate in matters of public interest and concern, and the competing interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public service it performs through its employees”
    2 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.