Vukadinovich v. Bartels’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 1387 · 1988
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Gray v. Lacke (1989), Cobb v. Pozzi (2003)
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · United States v. Goodwin
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a mere rewording of plaintiff's First Amendment-retaliation claim.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In cases where a public employee’s First Amendment rights are at issue, the courts engage in a three-step analysis. First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff’s speech is constitutionally protected. This is a question of law_ If the plaintiff’s speech is protected by the first amendment, then two issues of fact must be addressed. The first factual issue is whether the defendant’s actions were motivated by the plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech_ If the plaintiff can demonstrate that his or her constitutionally protected speech was a substantial or motivating fáctor in the defendant’s actions, the defendant must then have the opportunity to prove that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the plaintiff’s exercise of his or her first amendment rights....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In assessing whether the speech touches upon a matter of public concern, it is important not to equate the public's curiosity about a matter with the matter having societal ramifications. People may be interested in any number of aspects of the lives of public officials and employees, but that does not mean that such matters have societal ramifications. Conversely, the public may be extremely apathetic about certain matters of public concern....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.