Allen v. Scribner’s Empirical Analysis
812 F.2d 426 · 1987
Citation profile
97 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 161 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Anderson v. Creighton (1987), Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan (1989)
97 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 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]uch allegations are arguably the most fundamental sort of first amendment expression, given the first amendment's role in facilitating self-government.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Post v. Parsons · Hyland v. Wonder“[i]f a party fails to move to strike an affidavit that is allegedly defective under Rule 56(e), he waives any objection to it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“First, a court must determine whether the employee’s speech may be fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern. If so, the district court must weigh the employee’s first amendment interests against the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Should the employee prevail on the balancing test, the fact-finder determines whether the employee’s speech played a substantial part in the government’s decision to demote or discharge the employee. Finally, if the employee shows that the speech was a substantial motivating factor in the employment decision, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Gibson v. Bray · Sanchez
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.