Thomson v. Scheid’s Empirical Analysis
977 F.2d 1017 · 1992
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably Kincade v. City of Blue Springs (1995), Williams v. Kentucky (1994)
29 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Connick v. Myers · Paul v. Davis · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Detroit
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First Amendment protection extends to a public employee's speech when he speaks as a citizen, on a matter of public concern, but does not extend to speech made in the course of acting as a public employee.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Keith · Taylor v. Keith“[n]ot all matters discussed within a government office are of public concern, and thus internal office communication does not necessarily give rise to a constitutional claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Keith · Taylor v. Keith“We conclude that no such right exists. Most, if not all, state-created contract rights... are not protected by substantive due process. The substantive Due Process Clause is not concerned with the garden variety issues of common law contract. Its concerns are far narrower, but at the same time, far more important. Substantive due process “affords only those protections ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’ ” It protects those interests, some yet to be enumerated, “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” like personal choice in matters of marriage and the family. State-created rights such as [plaintiffs] contractual right to promotion do not rise to the level of [a] “fundamental” interest protected by substantive due process. Routine state-created contractual rights are not... vital that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed.””
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.