Barrett v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
649 F.2d 1193 · 1981
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Egger v. Phillips (1983), Arnaldo Jimenez Fuentes v. Honorable Jaime Torres Gaztambide (1986)
79 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · 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
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved. The term ‘confidential’ and ‘policymaker’ illuminate the contours of the employee class that may permissibly be subjected to a political litmus test, but any specific application of the exception must turn on the importance of political loyalty to the execution of the employee’s duties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Assuming plaintiffs’ allegations are true, was the defendants’ conduct an impermissible infringement of First Amendment freedoms? (2) Have plaintiffs met their burden of showing a constitutional deprivation? (3) Have defendants rebutted plaintiffs’ showing by proving that the same employment decision would have been reached regardless of the constitutionally protected conduct?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Parker v. Cronvich
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.