Egger v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
710 F.2d 292 · 1983
Citation profile
163 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 410 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Conaway v. Smith (1988), Busby v. City of Orlando (1991)
163 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 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 28 U.S.C. § 536 · 5 U.S.C. § 1206 · 5 U.S.C. § 2302
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Wolff v. McDonnell
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 410 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, [to] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[I]t is important not to equate the public's curiosity about a matter with the matter having societal ramifications. People may be interested in any number of aspects of the lives of public officials and employees, but that does not mean that such matter have societal ramifications. Conversely, the public may be extremely apathetic about certain matters of public concern....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“From the interview with an applicant for a position to discussions with the employee about the proper discharge of his duties, the content of an employee’s speech naturally affects his superior’s assessment of him and forms the basis of personnel decisions. ... [The employee’s superior in this case] was entirely justified in evaluating the soundness of [the employee’s] investigative technique, the inferences he drew from certain informant statements, and the overall soundness of his conclusion that certain leads were worth pursuing. ... [The employee] was simply doing his job as a criminal investigator, and the quality of that work was something [his superior] routinely had to assess.”
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.