Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 726 F.2d 670 - Berry v. Bailey

Berry v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

726 F.2d 670 · 1984

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2017
most recently cited

23 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Rowland v. Mad River Local School District, Montgomery County, Ohio (1985), Hatcher v. Board of Public Education & Orphanage (1987)

23 federal appellate ·

2901984199020002010decided

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 Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Perry v. Sindermann · Connick v. Myers · Elrod v. Burns

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

  1. “The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, noting that: While corruption in the Sheriffs office is a matter of legitimate public concern, it is not so vital a matter that it would justify our protection of an employee’s flagrant defiance of his direct supervisor..All of the statements except [one] were in direct conflict with the Sheriff. They took place on the job and concerned [the deputy’s] performance of his official duties. These statements are the kind that Pickering described as implicating the government’s interest; they threaten office discipline and harmony in the day-to-day close working relationships with immediate superiors necessary for efficient office functioning. Under the Pickering analysis, they are not protected speech.... We agree with the district court that [the plaintiff] is trying to claim that he was fired for doing his job expeditiously and honestly. While in this case, [the plaintiff’s] approach to law enforcement might have yielded a more pristine sheriff’s department than that of his superior, we cannot encourage employees to defy their employers and refuse to perform their duties every time they that the employer is vanning the office improperly. This is not a case where [the plaintiff] performed his duties according to his superior’s wishes, and pursued some outside course of action against the office’s inadequate enforcement of the law. Such a fact pattern would have presented a closer ease. On these facts, we cannot find any speech that passes the Picker”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “A person cannot be fired for his beliefs if they do not somehow manifest themselves ... [because an] employer would not know what the beliefs were. Such beliefs might manifest themselves in the person’s speech or in conduct constituting symbolic speech; they might also appear in his political associations or religious activities. To determine what line of cases is most analogous to, and therefore instructive on, ... [his] claim, we look at the manner in which his “beliefs” became known to the outside world.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”
    1 later decision 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.