Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 658 F.3d 225 - Jackler v. Byrne

Jackler v. Byrne’s Empirical Analysis

658 F.3d 225 · 2011

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Lore v. City of Syracuse (2012), Dahlia v. Rodriguez (2013)

28 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

135020112020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 18 U.S.C. § 4 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor

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

  1. “(1) whether the subject of the employee's speech was a matter of public concern and (2) whether the employee spoke 'as a citizen' rather than solely as an employee.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If, however, both questions are answered in the affirmative, the court then proceeds to the second step of the inquiry, commonly referred to as the Pickering analysis: whether the relevant government entity 'had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the public based on the government's needs as an employer.'”
    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.