Curl v. Reavis’s Empirical Analysis
740 F.2d 1323 · 1984
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Rowland v. Mad River Local School District, Montgomery County, Ohio (1985), Fariss v. Lynchburg Foundry (1985)
23 federal appellate · 5 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 31 U.S.C. § 6716 (§ 31001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 3789D
Relies on Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Runyon v. McCrary
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whether Curl is to be treated as a member of the Sheriff’s personal staff requires a careful examination of the nature and circumstances of her role in the Sheriff’s Department. Though Curl, like all deputies, served at the pleasure of the Sheriff, her position was created and her compensation paid by the county pursuant to state law. There is no evidence that her working relationship with Sheriff Reavis was “highly intimate and sensitive.” She was not under his personal direction, and she brought her promotion requests before his subordinate. Curl did not occupy a high position within the chain of command, and her duties were primarily clerical and secretarial.... We cannot conclude that Curl was a member of the Sheriffs personal staff....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nichols v. Hurley · Russell Nichols Robert Campbell Jim Walters Hayden Byrd Carl Miller Loyd McBee Blake Dudoit v. Charles Hurley, as Sheriff of Leflore County, Oklahoma the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Leflore, State of Oklahoma, and the Excise Board of Leflore County, Oklahoma, and the Secretary of Labor, Amicus Curiae. Al Cossey Alvin McGee Jim Lawson v. Bobby Gray, Sheriff of McIntosh County, State of Oklahoma Board of County Commissioners of McIntosh County, State of Oklahoma, the Secretary of Labor, Amicus Curiae“any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer’s personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress intended for the personal staff exception to apply only to those individuals who are in highly intimate and sensitive positions of responsibility on the staff of the elected official.”
3 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.