Giacalone v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 79 · 1988
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York (1993), Rodriguez v. City of New York (1995)
48 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In order to establish a constitutional violation Frazier must first prove that her speech involved a matter of public concern. . . . Second she must demonstrate that her interest in `commenting upon matters of public concern' is greater than the defendant's interest in `promoting the efficiency of the public services (they) perform. Third she must show that her speech motivated the defendant's decision to fire her."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a ... particularized ... sense; The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that 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 that in the light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Soto v. Lord · Zinker v. Doty
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.