Boger v. Wayne County’s Empirical Analysis
950 F.2d 316 · 1991
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Insurance (1994), Mary Elizabeth Leary v. Stephen W. Daeschner, Superintendent of the Jefferson County Board of Education (2000)
31 federal appellate · 1 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Perry v. Sindermann · Connick v. Myers
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the speech is related to a matter of public concern; 2) the plaintiffs interest in making the statement outweighs her employer’s interest in promoting efficiency in its operations; and 3) the protected speech was a “substantial” or “motivating” factor in the decision to penalize the plaintiff.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“'background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.''' Boger v. Wayne County, 950 F.2d 316, 325 (6th Cir.1991) (citation omitted). But cf. Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796 , 801 n. 7 (6th Cir.1994) (stating”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'such intent could have played a role in an adverse employment decision. Rather, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate that the adverse employment decision would not have been made”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.