Van Ooteghem v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.2d 304 · 1981
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Egger v. Phillips (1983), Haynesworth v. Miller (1987)
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Van Ooteghem v. Gray
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“decline[d] to reach or rule on [the official policy issue] without additional factual guidance and an express determination by the district court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In January 1975, plaintiff John Van Oot-eghem was hired by defendant Hartsell Gray, the Treasurer of Harris County, Texas, to serve first as Cashier Assistant County Treasurer, and later as Assistant County Treasurer. He was a nontenured employee. Van Ooteghem performed his job in a professional manner; he was recognized to be both hard-working and quite brilliant. Accordingly, Treasurer Gray treated the plaintiff with the respect due to a professional: Van Ootegh-em was allowed to set his own hours and to take time off as needed. On July 28, 1975, Van Ooteghem informed Gray that he was a homosexual and, shortly thereafter, related his plans to address the Commissioners Court on the subject of the civil rights of homosexuals. On July 31, 1975, Gray forwarded a letter to Van Ooteghem which purported to restrict the latter to his office between the hours of eight a.m. and twelve noon and from one p.m. until five p.m., Monday through Friday. These hours corresponded to the times during which citizens were allowed to address the Commissioners Court. The letter stated that its restrictions were intended to prevent Van Ooteghem from carrying on “political activities” during these hours. Van Ooteghem refused to sign an ac-knowledgement provided on the letter and his employment was terminated at the end of that day. In response, Van Ooteghem filed suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging that he was dismissed as Assistant County Treasurer in violation of his constitutional right”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Van Ooteghem v. Gray
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.