Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 617 P2D 196 - Hall v. O'KEEFE

Hall v. O'KEEFE’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
February 2003
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Phillips v. Calhoun (1992), Patrick v. Miller (1992)

23 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

240198019902000decided

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 Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Aniello v. Marcello · Umholtz v. City of Tulsa · Davis v. Cousineau · City of Wewoka v. Rodman

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.

  1. “create a sufficient expectancy of continued employment to constitute a property interest, which must be afforded constitutionally guaranteed due process.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “removals and demotions shall be made solely for the good of the service.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"To establish a claim that the discharge of an officer by a corporate authority violates section 51-102(6) of the Fire and Police Arbitration Act, the officer must show that his involvement in the activities protected by the Act was a substantial motivating factor in the decision to terminate his employment. A mere showing that the protected activities would be adversely affected by discharge is not sufficient to meet this burden. The officer cannot, by engaging is such conduct, shield himself from a removal which would occur in the absence of that conduct, nor can he by his involvement in protected labor activities force his employer to prove some more substantial grounds for removal than would have been required otherwise."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.