Aebisher v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
622 F.2d 651 · 1980
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Egger v. Phillips (1983), Trotman v. Board of Trustees of Lincoln University (1980)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Wood v. Strickland · Epperson v. Arkansas
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'First Amendment rights may be violated by the chilling effect of governmental action that falls short of a direct prohibition against speech.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We remand the matter to the district court so that it may factually determine the practice and procedure relative to the so-called letters of reprimand and the practical effect and consequence of their presence in plaintiffs’ employment files. If the facts as found indicate that the letters and Ryan’s comments have a chilling effect sufficient to trigger First Amendment inquiry, the district court must then ascertain the facts necessary for application of the Pickering balancing test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When appellees’ counsel urged that contention during oral argument in this Court, he was asked why, if the letters of reprimand had so little meaning and effect, they were not removed from appellants’ files, thus obviating the need for this costly litigation. The refusal of the school district to take this simple step indicated to the Court that the presence of the letters in appellants’ files might be more prejudicial than ap-pellees were willing to concede.”
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.