893 F. Supp. 2d 817 - Johnson v. Hurtt’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252C (§ 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (§ 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Kentucky v. Graham
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“courts review a number of factors, including the internal versus external nature of the speech, the employee's formal job description, whether the employee spoke on the subject matter of his or her employment, and whether the speech resulted from special knowledge gained as an employee. No one factor alone is dispositive.”
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.