Lyons v. Vaught’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “Did Lyons transform what began as unprotected speech pursuant to his duties as a lecturer into protected speech by virtue of speaking more broadly about the issue to both the UMKC Chancellor and "community leaders"? Perhaps. But [defendants] could reasonably conclude that Lyons spoke solely as an aggrieved lecturer in asking Chancellor Morton to investigate grading policies for student athletes. In these circumstances, Lyons has failed to show, using the particularized inquiry required, that his right to make this speech in these circumstances was clearly established.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mogard v. City of Milbank · Benner v. St. Paul Pub. Sch.

2. “a public employee must prove: (1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) the defendants took an adverse employment action against him; and (3) the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendants' decision to take the adverse employment action.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Groenewold v. Kelley · Benner v. St. Paul Pub. Sch.

3. “[U]nder the First Amendment, speech can be 'pursuant to' a public employee's official job duties even though it is not required by, or included in, the employee's job description, or in response to a request by the employer.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mogard v. City of Milbank · Nagel v. City of Jamestown