Henderson v. Sotelo’s Empirical Analysis
761 F.2d 1093 · 1985
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Blackburn v. Marshall City of (1995), Evans v. City of Dallas (1988)
20 federal appellate · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Perry v. Sindermann · Bishop v. Wood · Olim v. Wakinekona
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may determine by charter whether employment in certain city offices is at will or continuous absent just cause for dismissal, and Texas courts will give effect to such charter provisions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Dismissal. A permanent employee whose work is not satisfactory over a period of time shall be notified in what way his work is deficient and what he must do if his work is to be satisfactory. If a permanent employee fails to perform work up to the standard of the classification held, or continues to be negligent, inefficient, or unfit to perform his duties, he may be dismissed by the City Manager. Any discharged employee shall be given written notice of his discharge setting forth the effective date and reasons for his discharge if he shall request such a notice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“language, this type of charter provision creates no property interest. Consequently, Schultea had no entitlement to continued employment absent cause for dismissal under the Charter and, thus, had no property interest in his status as police chief. 11 Schultea nevertheless argues that representations made by the city manager who hired him--Don Taylor--constituted an oral agreement that the City would not remove him from his position as police chief except”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schultea v. Wood
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.