Bowie v. Maddox’s Empirical Analysis
653 F.3d 45 · 2011
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 161 (§ 11 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 710 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Garcetti v. Ceballos · Jackler v. Byrne · Fairley v. Andrews · Winder v. Erste · Bowie v. Maddox
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not necessarily mean the employee has a cause of action under the First Amendment when he contravenes that order.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The critical question under Garcetti is not whether the speech at issue has a civilian analogue, but whether it was performed “pursuant to ... official duties.” A test that allows a First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed whenever the government employee can identify a civilian analogue for his speech is about as useful as a mosquito net made of chicken wire: [a]ll official speech, viewed at a sufficient level of abstraction, has a civilian analogue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gibson v. Kilpatrick
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.