Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 627 F.2d 1279 - Tygrett v. Barry

Tygrett v. Barry’s Empirical Analysis

627 F.2d 1279 · 1980

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
3
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Egger v. Phillips (1983), Davis v. Heckler (1989)

27 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

4601980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 294

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 · Perry v. Sindermann · Elrod v. Burns · Camp v. Pitts

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

  1. “an individualized and searching review of the factors asserted by the employer to justify the discharge.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The test . . . requires not only that a plaintiff assume the initial burden of showing that his conduct was constitutionally protected and that it was a “substantial” or “motivating” factor in the government’s adverse action, but also that, if plaintiff has carried his burden, the government may show by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision had the protected conduct never occurred.... The touchstone for decision, therefore, is the employee’s job performance considered in its entirety.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “would eviscerate Pickering's effort to prevent the state from using its control over a person's job to penalize its employees for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. Therefore, it is essential, as Judge Leventhal said in an analogous case, that the court reviewing the discharge restrict its focus to”
    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.