Swank v. Smart’s Empirical Analysis
898 F.2d 1247 · 1990
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 10 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably McCabe v. Ce Sharrett (1994), Wroblewski v. City of Washburn (1992)
61 federal appellate · 10 district · 13 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mathews v. Eldridge · Anderson v. Creighton · Morrissey v. Brewer
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the advancement of knowledge, the transformation of taste, political change, cultural expression, and the other objectives, values, and consequences of the speech that is protected by the First Amendment.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] public agency can fire an employee on the basis of notice (which there was here) and a probable-cause hearing provided it offers him a full hearing afterward. Only if there is no provision for a post-termination hearing must the pre-termi- ■ nation hearing provide all the procedural safeguards to which due process entitles a tenured public employee.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A restriction on a form of liberty not explicitly codified in the Bill of Rights or singled out by the courts for special protection under such rubrics as `right to privacy' and `fundamental rights' violates the due process clause only if [it is] utterly unreasonable—that is what `arbitrary' means in this setting—and it is less likely to be found so if it is a regulation of public employees than if it is a regulation of private citizens.”
2 later decisions 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.