Boals v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.2d 686 · 1985
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Jackson v. City of Columbus (1999), Cobb v. Pozzi (2003)
61 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Parratt v. Taylor
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In ... the precedents in which Pickering is rooted, the invalidated statutes and actions sought to suppress the rights of public employees to participate in public affairs. The issue was whether government employees could be prevented or “chilled” by the fear of discharge from joining political parties and other associations that certain public officials might find “subversive.” The explanation for the Constitution’s special concern with threats to the right of citizens to participate in political affairs is no mystery. The First Amendment was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government. Accordingly, the Court has frequently reaffirmed that speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection. [.Pickering ] followed from this understanding of the First Amendment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not hold that speech by a public employee not on a matter of public interest was “totally beyond the protection of the First Amendment,” but merely that such speech did not give rise to a cause of action in federal court “to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee’s behavior.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n employee's speech, activity or association, merely because it is union-related, does not touch on a matter of public concern as a matter of law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Akers v. Mcginnis · Akers
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.