Skip to main content
Fourth Circuit· 10/4/1990

Stott v. Haworth

Citations

  • 916 F.2d 134

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that Elrod and Branti were “specific, narrow application[s] of” exception to principle against infringement of First Amendment rights (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • finding that deference must be given to the decision that designates positions as exempt
  • describing dispositive inquiry as “particular responsibilities” “of the public office in question” (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • “[A]n order certifying a class must be reversed if it becomes apparent, at any time during the pendency of the proceeding, that class treatment of the action is inappropriate.”
  • adopting two-step test from Jimenez Fuentes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Murnaghan, Russell, Widener

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

90 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.