King v. Zamiara’s Empirical Analysis
680 F.3d 686 · 2012
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably OSU Student Alliance v. Ray (2012), Ohio State Conference of the National Ass'n v. Husted (2014)
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Monroe v. Pape · Malley v. Briggs
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) ... the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“protected speech causes an adverse action if the speech motivates an individual actor to take acts that then proximatély cause an adverse action. Subjective motivation appropriately enters the picture on a retaliation claim because our concern is with actions by public officials taken with the intent to deter the rights to free expression guaranteed under the First Amendment. Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 681-82 (6th Cir.1998) (“[A]n act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would •have been proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, causation in retaliatory claims may really be considered a two-part inquiry: A plaintiff must show both (1) that the adverse action was proximately caused by an individual defendant’s acts, Siggers-El v. Barlow, 412 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir.2005), but also (2) that the individual taking those acts was “motivated in substantial part by a desire to punish an individual for exercise of a constitutional right,” Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 386 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hazel v. Quinn“would also improperly lower a defendant's evidentiary burden. Under the Mount Healthy and Thaddeus-X analysis, a defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maben v. Thelen
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.