Brooks v. Arthur’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “(1) whether the public employee was speaking as a citizen upon a matter of public concern or as an employee about a matter of personal interest; (2) whether the employee’s interest in speaking upon the matter of public concern outweighed the government’s interest in providing effective and efficient services to the public; and (3) whether the employee’s speech was a substantial factor in the employee’s termination decision.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Durham v. Jones · Willis v. City of Virginia Beach

2. “As to content, ... Connick directed us:o scrutinize the comments to assess whether they are intended “to evaluate the performance of the office” — which would merit constitutional protection— or merely “to gather ammunition for another round of controversy” with superiors — which would not. Id. at 148 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 . The Connick Court was explicit on this point: “When employee speech concerning office policy arises from an employment dispute concerning the very application of that policy to the speaker, additional weight must be given to the supervisor’s view” that the employee’s speech addresses solely a private dispute. Id. at 153 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 . At bottom Connick reflects the belief that many ordinary disputes in the public workplace should be settled or resolved without calling the heavy artillery of the Constitution into play. [Considering the form and context], [a]s the Supreme Court has emphasized, “[t]he forum in which a petition is lodged will be relevant to the determination of whether the petition relates to a matter of public concern.” Guarnieri, 131 S.Ct. at 2501 .... The Court stressed that the right of a public employee “to participate as a citizen, through petitioning activity, in the democratic process ... is not a right to transform everyday employment disputes into matters for constitutional litigation in the federal courts.” Id. at 2501 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vollette v. Watson

3. “discriminatory institutional policies or practices”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation Dist.