discussed Cited "but see" Catterson v. Caso But see Judge Broderick’s analysis in Finkel v. Branti, 457 F.Supp. 1284 , n.9 at 1289-90 (S.D.N.Y.1978), aff’d, 598 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. granted,-U.S.-, 99 S.Ct. 3095 , 60 L.Ed.2d - (1979), as to why Elrod may be read more broadly than the concurring Justices’ holding.

discussed Cited "see" Taylor v. United States, Department of Education (In Re Taylor) See Baggett v. First National Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1345 (11th Cir.1997) (citing Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 570 , 99 S.Ct. 2479 , 61 L.Ed.2d 82 , cert. denied, 443 U.S. 904 , 99 S.Ct. 3095 , 61 L.Ed.2d 872 (1979)) (“[I]mplying a private right of action on the basis of congressional silence is a hazardous enterprise, at best.”).

discussed Cited "see" Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook Cty. See Finkel v. Branti, 457 F.Supp. 1284 , 1289 n.9 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (Elrod concurrence and plurality both rely on Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 57 [1973] [broadly prohibiting the conditioning of government benefits on the exercise of first amendment rights]), aff’d 598, F.2d 609 (2d Cir.) (unpublished order), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 3095 , 61 L.Ed.2d 871 (1979); Stegmaier v. Trammell, 597 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (5th Cir. 1979) (collecting authorities); Rosenthal v. Rizzo, 555 F.2d 390, 392 (3d Cir. 1977).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." McIntyre v. State (2×) See also Chaney v. Wainwright, 561 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th Cir.1977), reh’g en banc denied, 570 F.2d 1391 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 443 U.S. 904 , 99 S.Ct. 3095 , 61 L.Ed.2d 871 (1979) (discussing Chaney’s independence from his mother as well as his awareness of his rights in refusing to equate request to call his mother with request for counsel).