Flynn v. Kornwolf’s Empirical Analysis
83 F.3d 924 · 1996
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2024
10 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Keene Corp. v. United States · In re Disbarment of Hurley · Travel All Over the World, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Next, the plaintiffs contend that the March 1993 court order appointing them court attendants gave them a property interest in their employment. The order lists the plaintiffs’ names, defines their authority, and states that the order expires on December 31, 1993. The plaintiffs argue that the order appointed them for a definite term, and therefore they had a "legally enforceable expectancy” in their employment and could be terminated only for cause. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that "[ajbsent civil service regulations or laws, or a contract or collective bargaining agreement, a [public] employee is an employee at will and has no property interest in employment.” Vorwald v. School Dist. of River Falls, 167 Wis.2d 549 , 557, 482 N.W.2d 93 , 96, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 941 , 113 S.Ct. 378 , 121 L.Ed.2d 289 (1992). The plaintiffs contend that, like civil service regulations or laws, or contracts or collective bargaining agreements, the court order appointing them abrogated Wisconsin’s general rule of at-will employment and made their employment terminable only for cause. They assert that the order gave them a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to their employment during its effective dates, and that they therefore had a property interest in their jobs. The plaintiffs' argument fails. Although the court order appointing them to their positions did contain an expiration date, it "place [d] no substantive restriction on the county’s [or the appointing judges'] authority to te”
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.