Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 960 F.2d 801 - Erickson v. Pierce County

Erickson v. Pierce County’s Empirical Analysis

960 F.2d 801 · 1992

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
1
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Nelson v. Pima Community College (1996), Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified School District (2001)

39 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

510199220002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Elrod v. Burns · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens · Branti v. Finkel · Kahn v. Grant

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

  1. “First, the terminated employee must establish that the conduct at issue was entitled to constitutional protection. Second, the employee must prove that the constitutionally protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor behind the tennination. Third, once the terminated employee has established the first two elements, the employer must prove that it would have made the same decision to terminate even if the employee had not engaged in the protected conduct.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, and the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, are reviewed de novo to determine if the plaintiff's claims were supported by substantial evidence.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “simply does not support [employee's] claim that her [political activity] was a substantial or motivating factor in [employer's] decision to terminate her”
    2 later decisions 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.