green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
73.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…notably, justice alito's concurrence in morse further emphasizes the narrowness of the court's holding.
at p. 927
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kutchinski v. Freeland Community School District
neither the supreme court nor this court has ever allowed schools to punish students for off-campus speech that is not school-sponsored or at a school-sponsored event and that caused no substantial disruption at school. we follow the logic and letter of these cases . . .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Norris v. Cape Elizabeth School District
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
although tinker dealt with political speech, the opinion has never been confined to such speech.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
B.L. by and through Levy v. Mahanoy Area School District
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
under this standard, two students can be punished for using a vulgar remark to speak about their teacher at a private party, if another student overhears the remark, reports it to the school authorities, and the school authorities find the remark 'offensive.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
B.H. Ex Rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District
(17×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
notably, justice alito's concurrence in morse further emphasizes the narrowness of the court's holding.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Defending Educ. v. Olentangy Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 930 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“As explained above, however, this contention is simply not supported by the record.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Carmen Santucci v. Borough of Upland, et al.
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 935 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
FORCHION v. GUSCIORA
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 936 (3d Cir. 2011) (Smith, J., concurring) (stating that the First Amendment protects speech that is “disruptive, offensive, vulgar, or insulting” (citing, inter alia, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408-10 (1989))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
KARABIN v. NORWIN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
In other words, “the parents’ liberty interest will only be implicated if the state’s action deprived them of their right to make decisions concerning their child, and not when the action merely complicated the making and implementation of those decisions.’” Id. at 934 (internal quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Slinkard v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 935 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Reg’l Bd. of Educ., 307 F.3d 243 , 259 (3d Cir. 2002)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Foote v. Ludlow School Committee
(2×)
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 934 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Anspach ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matthew J. Platkin v. Hanover Township Board of Education
Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District, "[a] conflict with the parents' liberty interest will not be lightly found, and, indeed, only occurs when there is some 'manipulative, coercive, or restraining conduct by the State.'" 650 F.3d 915, 933-34 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Anspach, 503 F.3d at 266 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matthew J. Platkin v. Middletown Township Board of Education
Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District, "[a] conflict with the parents' liberty interest will not be lightly found, and, indeed, only occurs when there is some 'manipulative, coercive, or restraining conduct by the State.'" 650 F.3d 915, 933-34 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Anspach, 503 F.3d at 266 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GEA Mechanical Equipment US Inc v. First State Insurance Co
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 925 (3d Cir. 2011); Cooper, 237 A.2d at 874 . 4 A. The Appreciable Prejudice Test7 The District Court found appreciable prejudice beyond “reasonable dispute” because, given GEA’s post-verdict notice, the insurers were “irreversibly deprived of any meaningful participation in [the] case.” GEA, 2023 WL 4052954 , at *7.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Parents Defending Educ. v. Olentangy Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 935 (3d Cir. 2011) (articulating the same principle).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SKROUPA v. SHALER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 934 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting C.N. v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159 , 184 (3d Cir. 2005)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
L. M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 935-36 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leroy v. Livingston Manor Central School District
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 929 (3d Cir. 2011) (reversing and remanding district court judgment where school officials could not reasonably forecast substantial disruption and where “beyond general rumblings, a few minutes of talking in class, and some officials rearranging their schedules,” no substantial disruption occurred).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.M. v. EAST ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT
(2×)
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 933 (3d Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
STOSIC v. BEDARD
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 933-34 (3d Cir. 2011); Bridges ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
STOSIC v. BEDARD
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 933-34 (3d Cir. 2011); Bridges ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vann v. Plano Independent School District
(2×)
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 933 (3d Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STEPIEN v. MURPHY
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 932 (3d Cir. 2011)), aff’d with different reasoning, 141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021); JENNY DIAMOND CHENG, Deciding Not to Decide: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. and the Supreme Court’s Ambivalence Towards Student Speech Rights 74 VAND.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MARSHALL v. CLARKE
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 935 (Gd Cir, 2011) (quoting Sypniewski, 307 F.3d at 259).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hewlette-Bullard v. Pocono Mountain School District
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 926 (3d Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
C1.G. v. Siegfried
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
C.G. cites specifically to the concurrence, which agreed, finding that the student “had no reason to know that [her Myspace profile] would make its way onto campus” because Myspace was blocked on school computers and she had made her profile “private.” See id. at 940 (Smith, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District
(2×)
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 925 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc). 7 only student speech but also public employee speech, obscen- ity, indecency, and many other doctrines.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
K.J. v. GREATER EGG HARBOR REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 926 (3d Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunt v. Board of Regents of UNM
(2×)
The opinions found in favor of the students but revealed a deep division over whether Tinker applies off-campus, with six judges saying it should, Snyder, 650 F.3d at 943 (Fisher, J., dissenting), five disagreeing, id. at 940 (Smith, J., concurring), and others insisting the “off-campus versus on-campus distinction is artificial and untenable in the world we live in today,” Layshock, 650 F.3d at 220 (Jordan, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zulema Longoria v. San Benito Indep Con Sch Dist
(2×)
Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District, 650 F.3d 915, 933 (3d Cir. 2011); Layshock ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
NORRIS v. CAPE ELIZABETH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 926 (3d Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzales v. Burley High School
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 929 (3d Cir. 2011) (the inconvenience associated with the student expression at issue, including the principal’s meetings related to it, “general rumblings,” students talking in class for a few minutes, and some school officials rearranging their schedules to assist the principal did not rise to a substantial disruption); Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks Sch.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yeasin v. Durham
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 920 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that a school district violated the First Amendment rights of a plaintiff when 16 it suspended her for creating a private social media profile mocking the school principal and containing adult and explicit content).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O'Donnell v. Knott
(2×)
Snyder , 650 F.3d at 921 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 925 (3d Cir. 2011)); see also Home for Crippled Children v. Prudential Insurance Co., 590 F.Supp. 1490, 1495 (W.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Betz v. Satteson
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 925 (3d Cir. 2011) (Chagares, J.) (en banc) (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
A.N. ex rel. Niziolek v. Upper Perkiomen School District
(3×)
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 926 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yeasin v. Durham
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 920 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that a school district violated the First Amendment rights of plaintiff when it suspended her for creating, outside of school, an online profile for the school principal that mocked the principal and contained adult language and explicit content); Lay shock v. Hermitage Sch.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Craig Keefe v. Beth Adams
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 925-33 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (holding that First Amendment barred school from punishing student for vulgar MySpace post concerning principal be cause it was off-campus speech); Layshock ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dunkley v. Board of Education
(2×)
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 926 (3d Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gregory Kline v. Zimmer Holdings Inc
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 925 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ryan v. Mesa Unified School District
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Id. at 768. . 650 F.3d at 920. .- Id. .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
E.g., Wynar, 728 F.3d at 1069 (holding that, regardless of the location of the speech, “when faced with an identifiable threat of school violence [ (threats communicated online via MySpace messages) ], schools may take disciplinary action in response to off-campus speech that meets the requirements of Tinker ”); Snyder, 650 F.3d at 940 (Smith, J., concurring) (noting that any standard adopted “cannot turn solely on where the speaker was sitting when the speech was originally uttered [because s]uch a standard would fail to accommodate the somewhat ‘everywhere at once’ nature of the [I…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Sagehorn v. Independent School District No. 728
(5×)
Id. at 920, The school district moved for summary judgment, stating that-the profile disrupted the school by- (1) causing “rumblings” in the school about the profile, (2) forcing teachers to ask students to stop discussing the profile, and (3) requiring the guidance counselor to cancel a number of counseling appointments so that she could meet with the principal, the student, and her mother.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Burge ex rel. Burge v. Colton School District 53
(3×)
In J.S., a student was suspended for creating a fake MySpace profile parodying her middle-school principal with crude language and sexually explicit content. 650 F.3d at 920.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board
(4×)
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 926, 930 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc), the Third Circuit assumed, without deciding, that Tinker applied to a student=s creation of a parody MySpace profile mocking the school principal, but held that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the speech would create a substantial disruption.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board
(6×)
In a separate concurrence, five judges expressed their position that Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech and that "the First Amendment protects students engaging in off-campus speech to the same extent it protects speech by citizens in the community at large.” Id. at 936 (Smith, C.J., concurring).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark Wynar v. Douglas County School District
(2×)
Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 926, 930 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc), the Third Circuit “assume[d], without deciding, that Tinker applie[d]” to a student’s creation of a parody MySpace profile mocking the school principal, but held that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the speech would create a substantial disruption.5 In a 5 In another Third Circuit en banc case decided the same day as Blue Mountain, and also involving a principal parody profile, the school district did “not dispute the district court’s finding that its punishment of [the student] was not appropriate under Tinker.” Laysho…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zapata Berríos v. J.F. Montalvo Cash & Carry, Inc.
Snyder v. Blue Mountain School Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 925 (3er Cir. 2011); Mauerhan v. Wagner Corp., 649 F.3d 1180, 1185 (10mo Cir. 2011); VRV Development L.P. v. Mid-Continent Cas.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J.s., a Minor, Through Her Parents; Terry Snyder; Steven Snyder
v.
Blue Mountain School District; Joyce Romberger; James Mcgonigle (mdpa Civil Action
v.
Blue Mountain School District; Joyce Romberger; James Mcgonigle (mdpa Civil Action
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-4138
J.S., a minor, through her parents; TERRY SNYDER; STEVEN SNYDER, Appellants v. BLUE MOUNTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT; JOYCE ROMBERGER; JAMES McGONIGLE
(MDPA Civil Action No. 07-cv-00585)
PRESENT: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, McKEE, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by appellants and the answer filed by appellees, it is hereby O R D E R E D that the petition for rehearing en banc is granted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion and judgment filed February 4, 2010, are hereby vacated. The matter will be argued before the en banc court on Thursday, June 3, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.
By the Court, /s/ Anthony J. Scirica Chief Judge
Date: April 9, 2010 tmk/cc: Mary E. Kohart, Esq. Aliceson K. Littman, Esq. Mary Catherine Roper, Esq. Tara S. Sarosiek, Esq. Witold J. Walczak, Esq. Jonathan P. Riba, Esq. Robert D. Richards, Esq. Marsha L. Levick, Esq. Lourdes M. Rosado, Esq.