Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 89 F.3d 761 - Cooper v. Smith

Cooper v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

89 F.3d 761 · 1996

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Watkins v. Bowden (1997), Peter Kokkinis v. Vladimir Ivkovich Village of Bridgeview (1999)

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

180199620002010decided

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

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Clearly, the law does not discourage public employees from cooperating with law enforcement in investigations of unlawful activities within their respective governmental organizations.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]here can be no doubt that corruption in a police department is an issue of public concern”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The district court determined that Cooper had adduced sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether Cooper's speech in cooperating with the GBI caused Smith to terminate him. To the extent that Smith challenges that determination on appeal, we decline to address Smith's argument, which amounts to an evidentiary sufficiency issue not itself immediately appealable.”
    1 later decision 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.