Hogue v. Clinton’s Empirical Analysis
791 F.2d 1318 · 1986
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably Todoroy v. DCH Healthcare Authority (1991), Cifarelli v. Village of Babylon (1996)
53 federal appellate · 7 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 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 · Paul v. Davis · Bishop v. Wood · Carey v. Piphus
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“creates only an expectancy of review, not of continued employment; the procedures outlined place no significant substantive restrictions on the decision-making.... We do not see, then how [the employee] could have harbored anything more than a unilateral expectation of continued employment, insufficient to entitle him to due process protection.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Grievance procedures that do not establish any grounds upon which termination must be based do not in themselves create a property interest in employment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Further, it seems clear that the “Policies and Procedures on Employee Griev anee of the Department of Human Services” creates such a contract between Hogue and his employers. The grievance procedure states that an employee “who feels he/she has been terminated unfairly will have the right to appeal, under the following formal procedure.” This provision may be properly construed to impose substantive restraints on the decision to terminate. The term “unfair” in the employment context lends itself to an ordinary meaning of “without good cause.” Thus, the appeal procedure here should be interpreted to both create a contract between Hogue and his employer that he will not be terminated except for cause, and to transform a “mere procedure” into a substantive expectancy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Drake v. Scott · Drake v. Scott
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.