Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 856 F.2d 1401 - Roth v. Veteran's Administration of the Government of the United States

Roth v. Veteran's Administration of the Government of the United States’s Empirical Analysis

856 F.2d 1401 · 1988

Citation profile

144
cited by 144 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

86 federal appellate · 7 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 144 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), Melton v. City of Oklahoma City (1989)

86 federal appellate · 7 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 12 states

7401988199020002010decided

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 · 38 U.S.C. § 4104 · 38 U.S.C. § 4106 · 38 U.S.C. § 4110

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.

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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Courts have . . . identified the misuse of public funds, wastefulness, and inefficiency in managing and operating government entities as matters of public concern.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"If we accepted defendants' argument ..., we essentially would be holding that public employees can never maintain [an] action alleging retaliation for exercise of their first amendment rights because adjudicating these claims requires particularized balancing. We decline to adopt a rule that would effectively eviscerate whistleblower [or, in this case, publicly critical speech] protection for public employees."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We caution that a stronger showing may be necessary if the employee's speech more substantially involved matters of public concern.”
    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.