D'ACQUISTO v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions

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

1. “First, obviously, if the injury rests on defamation, the state action must be defamatory. At a minimum, then, the charges must be false, Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 627 , 97 S.Ct. 882, 884 , 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977), and must have been communicated to someone, Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 348 , 96 S.Ct. 2074, 2079 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976). Secondly, if the alleged injury is to the individual’s liberty interest in pursuit of his occupation, then the defamation must come in the context of an unfavorable employment decision, Colaizzi v. Walker, 542 F.2d 969 (7th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 960 , 97 S.Ct. 1610 , 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1977); must carry the kind of stigma which could substantially curtail the individual’s employment possibilities, Munson v. Friske, 754 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. 1985); and must have been communicated, or have the potential for being communicated, to possible employers. Perry [v. F.B.I.] 759 F.2d [1271] at 1279[ 7th Cir. (1985)]; Larry [v. Lawler ], 605 F.2d [954] at 958[7th Cir. (1978)]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Wright v. Glover · 782 F. Supp. 381 - Golbeck v. City of Chicago

2. “In any municipality of more than 500,-000 population, no officer or employee of the police department in the classified civil service of the municipality whose appointment has become complete may be removed or discharged, or suspended for more than 30 days except for cause upon written charges and after an opportunity to be heard in his own defense by the Police Board.... Upon the filing of charges for which removal or discharge, or suspension of more than 30 days is recommended a hearing before the Police Board shall be held. Nothing in this Section limits the power of the superintendent to suspend a subordinate for a reasonable period, not exceeding 30 days.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. D'ACQUISTO v. Washington · 753 F. Supp. 1418 - Ceko v. Martin

3. “The Conflict Between a Public Employer’s Right to Question Its Employee and the Employee’s Privilege Against Self-Incrimination [T]he [public employer] has a choice between either demanding a statement from an employee on job-related matters, in which case it can not use the statements in a criminal prosecution, or prosecuting the employee, in which case it cannot terminate the employee for refusing to give a statement. The [public employer] may demand that an employee give a statement on pain of dismissal even if the statement may tend to incriminate. An employee may then be fired either for refusing to give answers or on the basis of the answers which are given. However, the state may not use coerced answers in a criminal proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 142 Md. App. 312 - Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Shockley