green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
54.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases ·
…a page of history is worth a volume of logic
at p. 950
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2013–2017 · 2 courts ·
…a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance.
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases ·
…desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint
at p. 926
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 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 . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Norris v. Cape Elizabeth School District
(2×)
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
(4×)
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
(14×)
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.
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).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Foote v. Ludlow School Committee
Cf. Snyder, 650 F.3d at 934 (noting that "manipulative" conduct by the government could interfere with parental rights under the Due Process Clause (quoting Anspach, 503 F.3d at 265 )).
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)
D.M. v. EAST ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT
The Third Circuit has dismissed due process claims alleging a violation of the parent-child relationship at summary judgment because the facts did not implicate “matters of the greatest importance.” See, e.g., id. at 184–85 (distributing a survey with questions about sexual activity and substance abuse did not infringe on the parents’ liberty interest); J.S., 650 F.3d at 934 (deciding that a student’s use of social media did not trigger a parents’ liberty interest).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vann v. Plano Independent School District
And to do so would be arduous as student safety and maintaining good order have long been recognized 8 For example, the Third Circuit has held that “a conflict with 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.” Snyder, 650 F.3d at 934 (citations omitted). as legitimate state interests.
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)
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O'Donnell v. Knott
(2×)
Snyder , 650 F.3d at 921 (emphasis added).
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
(6×)
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board
(2×)
In a separate concurrence, five judges expressed their position that Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech and that Athe 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).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board
(4×)
In a separate concurrence, five judges expressed their position that Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech and that Athe 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
DIST. 13 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).
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brittany Morrow v. Barry Balaski
Times, Oct. 6, 2012, http://nyti.ms/ThvbFq, to monitoring online social media activity within and outside school premises, see, e.g., J.S., 650 F.3d at 915, and, in the wake of recent tragic school shootings, locking classrooms in further restriction of student movement.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
S.J.W. Ex Rel. Wilson v. Lee's Summit R-7 School District
Finally, in J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, the Third Circuit found that a school district had violated the First Amendment rights of plaintiff J.S. when it suspended J.S. for creating, outside of school, an online profile for the school principal that mocked the principal and contained “adult language and sexually explicit content.” 650 F.3d 915, 920 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1097 , 181 L.Ed.2d 978 (2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tatro v. University of Minnesota
Dist., 650 F.3d at 940 (Smith, J., concurring).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
T.V. v. Smith-Green Community School Corp.
(6×)
J.S., 650 F.3d at 926-27.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Justin Layshock v. Hermitage Sch Dist
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The concurrence does acknowledge, however, that whether Tinker applies “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 internet,]” id. at 940.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hewlette-Bullard v. Pocono Mountain School District
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See J.S., 650 F.3d at 931 ; Layshock ex rel.
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.