Peterson v. Dean’s Empirical Analysis
777 F.3d 334 · 2015
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2021
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 Perry v. Sindermann · Elrod v. Burns · Branti v. Finkel · Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois · Shaw v. Reno
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Category One : positions specifically named in relevant federal, state, county, or municipal law to which discretionary authority with respect to the enforcement of that law or the carrying out of some other policy of political concern is granted; Category Two : positions to which a significant portion of the total discretionary authority available to category one position-holders has been delegated; or positions not named in law, possessing by virtue of the jurisdiction's pattern or practice the same quantum or type of discretionary authority commonly held by category one positions in other jurisdictions; Category Three : confidential advisors who spend a significant portion of their time on the job advising category one or category two position-holders on how to exercise their statutory or delegated policymaking authority, or other confidential employees who control the lines of communications to category one positions, category two positions or confidential advisors; Category Four : positions that are part of a group of positions filled by balancing out political party representation, or that are filled by balancing out selections made by different governmental agents or bodies. If a particular position falls into one of these categories, then political affiliation is an appropriate consideration for that position and a public employee may be dismissed without violating the First Amendment. A government position is not required, however, to fall neatly within one of the ca”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If there is any ambiguity about whether a particular position falls into any of [the four categories] ..., it is to be construed in favor of the governmental defendants when the position at issue is unclassified or non-merit under state law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first step in assessing a patronage dismissal claim requires asking whether the plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence for a jury to find that he was discharged because of his political beliefs or affiliations.”
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.