Dobosz v. Walsh’s Empirical Analysis
892 F.2d 1135 · 1989
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Bloch v. Ribar (1998), Ciambriello v. County of Nassau (2002)
19 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Anderson v. Creighton · Perry v. Sindermann · Paul v. Davis
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Plaintiff] ... has also alleged a broad campaign (including the suspension) by [the defendant] to retaliate against him for his exercise of his First Amendment speech rights. [Defendant] is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim. Because [plaintiff] has adequate evidentiary support for his claim of retaliation to withstand [defendant’s] motion for summary judgment, we must assume for purposes of discussion that [defendant] did retaliate against [plaintiff]. The proper inquiry in this context is, assuming [defendant] had such a motive, whether it was clearly established in 1981 that such a campaign of harassment (including the suspension) based on the alleged retaliatory motive would violate [plaintiffs] First Amendment rights. [Plaintiff] clearly was exercising his right to free speech when he cooperated with the F.B.I. and when he testified against his fellow officer in court. Because the proscription of retaliation for a plaintiffs exercise of First Amendment rights has long been established, we conclude that [defendant] is not entitled to qualified immunity....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“under the legal rules prevailing at the time the actions were taken.”
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.