Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 931 F.2d 613 - Wheaton v. Webb-Petett

Wheaton v. Webb-Petett’s Empirical Analysis

931 F.2d 613 · 1991

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
4
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Ciambriello v. County of Nassau (2002), Portman v. County of Santa Clara (1993)

28 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

4201991200020102020decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Anderson v. Creighton · Edelman v. Jordan · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Charges that carry the stigma of moral turpitude may implicate a liberty interest, but charges of incompetence or inability to get along with others do not. We must also distinguish charges that simply reduce economic rewards and • diminish prestige from those with more serious consequences, such as a protracted hiatus in employment or a permanent exclusion from a profession or trade.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Though a Sec. 1983 action may be instituted ... [against state officials], a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief ... and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “interest in making her statement against the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”
    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.