Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 4,805 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty. Anchor | green | “the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” | 1,046 |
| 2 | Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. Myers | green | “whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.” | 873 |
| 3 | Garcetti v. Ceballos | green | “when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for first amendment purposes, and the constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” | 657 |
| 4 | Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. Myers | green | “when employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the firs…” | 647 |
| 5 | Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. Myers | green | “when a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, absent the most unusual circumstances, a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel deci…” | 226 |
| 6 | Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle | red | “even in the absence of the protected conduct.” | 222 |
| 7 | Rankin v. McPherson | green | “whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker's duties or interferes with the regular o…” | 212 |
| 8 | Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty. | green | “the state has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.” | 204 |
| 9 | Lane v. Franks | green | “the critical question under garcetti is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee's duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties.” | 196 |
| 10 | Garcetti v. Ceballos | green | “the first amendment protects a public employee's right, in certain circumstances, to speak as a citizen addressing matters of public concern.” | 188 |
| 11 | Garcetti v. Ceballos | green | “whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” | 180 |
| 12 | Rankin v. McPherson | green | “the manner, time, and place of the employee's expression are relevant, as is the context in which the dispute arose.” | 79 |
| 13 | Lane v. Franks | green | “the mere fact that a citizen's speech concerns information acquired by virtue of his public employment does not transform that speech into employee-rather than citizen-speech.” | 75 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.