Dartland v. Metropolitan Dade County’s Empirical Analysis
866 F.2d 1321 · 1989
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Busby v. City of Orlando (1991), Lassiter v. Alabama (1994)
64 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]ecause no bright-line standard puts the reasonable public employer on notice of a constitutional violation, the employer is entitled to immunity except in the extraordinary case where Pickering balancing would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the discharge of the employee was unlawful.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“loyalty, discipline and good working relationships among those he supervises.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. First Amendment The Supreme Court has never established a bright-line standard for determining when the State as an employer may take action adverse to an employee in response to that employee’s speech. Instead, the Court has balanced the interest of the employee in commenting on matters of public concern against the interest of the employer in performing public services efficiently. The court must necessarily balance these interests on a ease-by-case basis. Because of this case-by-case basis, “[t]here will rarely be a basis for [an] a priori judgment that the termination or discipline of a public employee violated ‘clearly established’ constitutional rights.” Because no bright-line standard puts the reasonable public employer on notice of a constitutional violation, the employer is entitled to immunity except in the extraordi nary ease where Pickering balancing would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the discharge of the employee was unlawful.”
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.