Boyle v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis
925 F.2d 497 · 1991
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Febus-Rodriguez v. Betancourt-Lebron (1994), San Filippo v. Bongiovanni (1994)
17 federal appellate · 13 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
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 2021 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Connick v. Myers · Dandridge v. Williams · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ajbsolute First Amendment protection is not accorded to any grievance a public employee files against an employer, without regard to content. In Connick , the Supreme Court struck a balance between the speech rights of the employee as a citizen and the interests of the State as employer and provider of essential services, holding that “[w]hen employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n individual does not lose this right because she is employed by the government.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““means are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.” ... [I]n general, legislative classifications are “presumed to be valid.” If such a classification “has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ ””
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.