Anemone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Empirical Analysis
629 F.3d 97 · 2011
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
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 · Garcetti v. Ceballos · 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]lthough the language in Mt. Healthy refers to the plaintiffs [protected] conduct, the Court’s analysis, properly understood, attempts to weigh the impact of the defendant’s impermissible reason on the defendant’s decision to act.... The relevant question then, with respect to Anemone’s speech to the [New York] Times, is not whether he would have suffered termination absent the speech itself, but rather whether even without the improper motivation the alleged retaliatory action would have occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[i]t would be incongruous to interpret Garcetti , a case concerned with allowing the government to control its employees within their jobs, as giving broader protections to disobedient employees who decide they know better than their bosses how to perform their duties.’” Anemone, 629 F.3d 97, 116 (quoting Thompson v. Dist. of Columbia, 530 F.3d 914, 918 (D.C.Cir.2008)). 8 . Indeed, the legislator who”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that [a government employee] persists in such speech after a supervisor has told [her] to stop does not, without more, transform [her] speech into protected speech made as a private citizen.’’). . Stahura-Uhl also brings a claim alleging that her First Amendment rights were”
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.