Pro v. Donatucci’s Empirical Analysis
81 F.3d 1283 · 1996
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 18 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Gallo v. City of Philadelphia (1998), Worrell v. Henry (2000)
42 federal appellate · 18 district ·
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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The content of the speech may help to characterize it as relating to a matter of social or political concern of the community if, for example, the speaker seeks to ‘bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust’ on the part of government officials. The form and context of the speech may help to characterize it as relating to a matter of social or political concern to the community if, for example, the forum where the speech activity takes place is not confined merely to the public office where the speaker is employed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say ... the unlawfulness must be apparent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When an employee testifies before an official government adjudicatory or fact-finding body he speaks in a context that is inherently of public concern. Our judicial system is designed to resolve disputes, to right wrongs. We encourage uninhibited testimony, under penalty of perjury, in an attempt to arrive at the truth. We would compromise the integrity of the judicial process if we tolerated state retaliation for.testimony that is damaging to the state.” The utility of uninhibited testimony and the integrity of the judicial process would be damaged if we were to permit unchecked retaliation for appearance and truthful testimony at such proceedings. Not only would “the first amendment right of the witness be infringed by this type of coercion, the judicial interest in attempting to resolve disputes would be in jeopardy. Furthermore, a witness who succumbed to any real or imagined coercion could also be subject to a charge of perjury.””
3 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.