Johnson v. Lincoln University of Commonwealth System of Higher Education’s Empirical Analysis
776 F.2d 443 · 1985
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Bennis v. Gable (1987), Merkle v. Upper Dublin School District (2000)
28 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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. § 1291 · 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 · Connick v. Myers · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Parker v. Levy
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“second and third questions ... should be submitted to the jury”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Speech is of “public concern” if it involves issues about which information is needed or appropriate to en- ■ able the members of society to make informed decisions about the operation of their government. 2. The fact that the public employee engages in the speech while in the course of his or her employment does not preclude a finding that the speech touches upon a matter of public concern. 3. The employee’s motive for engaging in the speech in question is a relevant, but not dispositive, factor when considering whether an employee’s expression is of public concern. 4. Although First Amendment protection might not be available if the employer can show that the public employee knowingly or recklessly made false statements, a public employee is not required to prove the truth of his or her speech in order to secure the protections of the First Amendment.”
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.