McEvoy v. Shoemaker’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.2d 463 · 1989
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Hicks v. City of Watonga (1991), Moore v. City of Wynnewood (1995)
25 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on 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 · Connick v. Myers
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But speech which may be of general interest to the public is not automatically afforded first amendment protection, (citations omitted). [W]e recently recognized that in analyzing such issues, ‘courts have particularly focused on the extent to which the content of the employee speech was calculated to disclose wrongdoing or inefficiency or other malfeasance on the part of government officials in the conduct of their official duties. More recently, in Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 796 (10th Cir.1988), we emphasized that in analyzing whether speech constitutes a matter of public concern, the focus is on the motive of the speaker, H.e., whether the speech was calculated to disclose misconduct or dealt with only personal disputes and grievances with no relevance to the public interest.’ (emphasis in original). See also Callaway v. Hafeman, 832 F.2d 414, 417 (7th Cir.1987) (courts may look at the point of the speech: Was the employee’s point to bring wrongdoing to light or raise other issues of public concern because they are of public concern, or was the point to further some purely private interest?).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Gressley v. Deutsch“Given the entirety of [the employee's] letter, we are convinced that his principal purpose in writing it was not to disclose 'malfeasance on the part of government officials in the conduct of their official duties,' but instead to air his frustration at [workplace events].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.