green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
59.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1990 ·
…t does not matter that we have concluded that perception of disruption was objectively unreasonable, because an award of punitive damages requires an assessment of his subjective state of mind
at p. 867
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Walton v. Wyandotte County, Kansas, Unified Government of
if the authorized policymakers approve a subordinate's decision and the basis for it, their ratification would be chargeable to the municipality because their decision is final.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Adams v. City of Oklahoma
upon a finding that the speech in question is constitutionally protected, the plaintiff must prove that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged employment -16- decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Redpath v. City of Overland Park
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
if that's the ease, i'll have his ass.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Barnhill v. Board of Regents of UW System
(2×)
t does not matter that we have concluded that perception of disruption was objectively unreasonable, because an award of punitive damages requires an assessment of his subjective state of mind
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lamb v. Montrose County Sheriff's
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the form of the speech, a formal letter to the attorney general seeking an investigation of alleged misconduct by a public official, emphasizes the publicconcern element.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jackson v. City and County of Denver
praprotnik directs us to look only at where statutory policymaking authority lies, rather than where de facto authority may reside.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ward v. National Credit Systems, Inc.
However, while the Tenth Circuit previously recognized comparison cases as a factor relevant to the remittitur analysis, see, e.g., Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 875 (10th Cir. 1989), more recent cases make clear that the Tenth Circuit “discourage[s] comparisons to awards from other cases,” Hill, 815 F.3d at 670 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) McCoy v. Holguin
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th 6 Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Hackworth v. Arevalos
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harvey v. Butcher
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oldridge v. Layton
In Wulf v. City of Wichita, for example, we concluded that a letter written by a police officer to the Kansas Attorney General alleging that WPD leaders violated the First Amendment and Kansas law was on a matter of public concern. 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Givens v. Wichita, Kansas, City of
McDonald v. Wise, 769 F.3d 1202, 1212 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Rich v. Sec’y of the Army, 735 F.2d 1220, 1227 (10th Cir. 1984) (requiring publication); Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 869 (10th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Calderon v. City and County of Denver
“Concerning a defendant acting in a non-supervisory capacity, there must be cause in fact between the conduct complained of and the constitutional deprivation.” Id. (citing Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 864 (10th Cir. 1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. The City of Texico
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th Cir. 1989); see also Youren v. Tintic Sch.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cook v. Whyde
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Concerning a defendant acting in a non-supervisory capacity, there must be cause in fact between the conduct complained of and the constitutional deprivation.” Id. (citing Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 864 (10th Cir. 1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fresquez v. BNSF Railway Co.
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 874 (10th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Janus v. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Id. (citing Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dechant v. Grayson
Specifically, courts look to state law to determine whether an individual is a final policymaker and assess “where statutory policymaking authority lies, rather than where de facto authority may reside.” Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 869 (10th Cir. 1989) (first emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hale v. Emporia State University
Legal Standard “‘Back pay awards seek to make whole discharged employees for their lost wages . . . .’” Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 870 (10th Cir. 1989) (quoting EEOC v. Sandia Corp., 639 F.2d 600, 626 (10th Cir. 1980) (further citation omitted)); see also Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 419 (1975) (“It is also the purpose of Title VII to make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joritz v. Gray-Little
Cf. Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 849-50, 857 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that allegations in letter to Attorney General that included a report of sexual harassment of an officer by a supervisor involved matters of public concern); Wren v. Spurlock, 798 F.2d 1313 , 1317-18 & n.1 (10th Cir. 1986) (holding that allegations in letter from majority of teachers to state education association that included report of sexual harassment of several students and other teachers involved matter of public concern).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
O'Neal v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Fremont
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hershey v. Turner
As to the third element, the Tenth Circuit has indicated that for First Amendment claims the speech must be a “substantial or motivating factor.” Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 856-857 (10th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Finley v. Colby, Kansas, City of
Defendants are asking the Court to take the dashcam video as evidence of Plaintiff’s deliberate or reckless false statement. 16 Dill v. City of Edmond, Okla., 155 F.3d 1193, 1202 (10th Cir. 1998) (noting that “deliberately or recklessly false statements do not receive First Amendment protection” but that defendants had not shown that the plaintiff “knew or should have known his statements were false”), abrogated in part on other grounds by Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2001); Moore v. City of Wynnewood, 57 F.3d 924, 933 (10th Cir. 1995) (stating that “[w]e may assume th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. Luigi's Italian Restaurant
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 870 (10th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. BNSF Railway Company
Plaintiffs seeking punitive damages have a formidable burden. “[A]n award of punitive damages requires an assessment of [the defendant’s] subjective state of mind.” Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. City of Idabel
That requires us to assess “where statutory policymaking authority lies, rather than where de facto authority may reside.” 25 Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 869 (10th Cir. 1989) (first emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fox v. Pittsburg State University
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. . 883 F.2d 842, 875 (10th Cir. 1989). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mathiason v. Aquinas Home Health Care, Inc.
“These unknowable factors always make a front pay award somewhat speculative.” Id. (citing Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 873 (10th Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Salemi v. Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n
Id., citing Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 856-57 (10th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eisenhour v. Weber County
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 856-57 (10th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eisenhour v. Weber County
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 856-57 (10th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McDonald v. Miller
Id. (citing Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 628 , 97 S.Ct. 882 , 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977), Flanagan, 890 F.2d at 1571-72, and Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 869 (10th Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oleynikova v. Bicha
See Schalk v. Gallemore, 906 F.2d 491, 496 (10th Cir.1990) (considering speaker’s motive as well as content of speech); Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir.1989) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McInerney v. United Air Lines, Inc.
(2×)
United argues that, pursuant to Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 874-75 (10th Cir. 1989), we must compare the amount of damages awarded in this case to damage awards in similar cases to determine if the award is excessive.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mink v. Knox
(2×)
See Poolaw v. Marcantel, 565 F.3d 721, 732 (10th Cir.2009) (presence during search held unnecessary for § 1983 *1002 liability for unconstitutional search where one defendant officer authorized search and second defendant officer drafted affidavit for search warrant); [5] Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 864 (10th Cir.1989) (concluding defendant was sufficiently involved in entire decision-making process and thus personally liable where Personnel Advisory Board listened to defendant's recommendation and, to some extent, relied on it).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Westmoreland v. Sutherland
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, n. 24 (10th Cir.1989); See also, Brenner v. Brown, 36 F.3d 18 (7th Cir.1994) (“an employee’s speech is not protected where it is made with a reckless disregard for the truth”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blangsted v. Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
Given this and other evidence presented at trial regarding the circumstances of Plaintiffs termination, I “cannot conclude that some award for such anguish and distress is unsupported by substantial evidence.” Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 875 (10th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dillman v. Winchester
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Moore v. City of Wynnewood, 57 F.3d 924 , (10th Cir.1995); Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 858 (10th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. Fairfax County, Va.
See Cline, 144 F.3d at 305-06 (finding a plaintiffs jury award for compensatory damages of $117,500.00 excessive and remitting the award to $10,000.00 because there was no evidence that plaintiffs emotional trauma and anxiety persisted over time, that it affected plaintiffs ability to perform his job, or that it required counseling); Meyers v. City of Cincinnati, 14 F.3d 1115, 1119 (6th Cir. 1994) (affirming a compensatory damages award of $25,000.00 because the plaintiff lost ten pounds, suffered from insomnia, and was prescribed medication for stom *605 ach problems as a result of being forc…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott v. City of Minco
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Wulf, 883 F.2d at 857.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trujillo v. BD. OF EDUC. OF ALBUQUERQUE PUB. SCH.
See Lighton v. Univ. of Utah, 209 F.3d at 1224-25 ; Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir.1989); Koch v. City of Hutchinson, 847 F.2d at 1445 ("[M]any courts have particularly focused on the extent to which the content of the employee speech was calculated to disclose wrongdoing or inefficiency or other malfeasance on the part of governmental officials in the conduct of their official duties.").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trujillo v. Board of Education of the Albuquerque Public Schools
See Lighton v. Univ. of Utah, 209 F.3d at 1224-25 ; Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir.1989); Koch v. City of Hutchinson, 847 F.2d at 1445 (“[M]any courts have particularly focused on the extent to which the content of the employee speech was calculated to disclose wrongdoing or inefficiency or other malfeasance on the part of governmental officials in the conduct of their official duties.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Goico v. Boeing Co.
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 873 (10th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nava v. City of Santa Fe
Cf. Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 874-75 (10th Cir.1989) (holding that an award of $250,000 for mental anguish and distress was grossly excessive).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trujillo v. Board of Education of the Albuquerque Public Schools
(2×)
See Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213, 1224-25 (10th Cir.2000); Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir.1989); Koch v. City of Hutchinson, 847 F.2d 1436 , 1445-46 & n. 17 (10th Cir.1988)(eri banc)(“[M]any courts have particularly focused on the extent to which the content of the employee speech was calculated to disclose wrongdoing or inefficiency or other malfeasance on the part of governmental officials in the conduct of their official duties.”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 909 , 109 S.Ct. 262 , 102 L.Ed.2d 250 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trujillo v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF ALBUQUERQUE SCHOOLS
(2×)
See Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213, 1224-25 (10th Cir.2000); Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir.1989); Koch v. City of Hutchinson, 847 F.2d 1436 , 1445-46 & n. 17 (10th Cir.1988)(en banc)("[M]any courts have particularly focused on the extent to which the content of the employee speech was calculated to disclose wrongdoing or inefficiency or other malfeasance on the part of governmental officials in the conduct of their official duties."), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 909 , 109 S.Ct. 262 , 102 L.Ed.2d 250 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wirtz v. Kansas Farm Bureau Services, Inc.
Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 871 (10th Cir.1989), citing Blum v. Witco Chemical Corp., 829 F.2d 367, 373 (3rd Cir.1987) (“The relevant time period for calculating an award of back pay begins with wrongful termination and ends at the time of trial.”). 43 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Busey v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS, COUNTY, SHAWNEE, KS
Moore, 57 F.3d at 934 (quoting Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 861 (10th Cir.1989)); see also Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 246-47 , 96 S.Ct. 1440 , 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976) (recognizing the need to accord police departments wide latitude in decisions that impact "discipline, esprit de corps, and uniformity”). 27 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Godinet v. Management & Training Corp.
Defendant offered no direct authority applying the aggregate mitigation method; it merely cited Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 871 (10th Cir.1989), where, in a footnote, we stated “[t]he relevant time period for calculating an award of back pay begins with wrongful termination and ends at the time of trial” (internal quotations omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jacqueline W. Davis
v.
Margaret M. Heckler
v.
Margaret M. Heckler
85-2867.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 1, 1989.
883 F.2d 842
Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (2)
Jacqueline W. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Margaret M. HECKLER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 85-2867.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 1, 1989.
[*~876]3
The opinion filed February 13, 1989, is withdrawn.
*
Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation