holding that constitutional protection does not protect against patronage dismissal of state motor vehicle agents because the judiciary "has an obligation to respect political choices”
How later courts described this case
- holding that constitutional protection does not protect against patronage dismissal of state motor vehicle agents because the judiciary "has an obligation to respect political choices”
- holding that independent contractors whose contracts were terminated following a change in administration were not protected by the First Amendment
- rejecting view that independent contractors can be treated differently than employees for First Amendment purposes
- applying New Jersey law to determine plaintiffs’ employment status in a civil rights action
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Board of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996)
Horn v. Kean, 796 F.2d 668, 674 (3d Cir.1986) (en banc), overruled by Umbehr, 518 U.S. at 673, 116 S.Ct. 2342.
Overruled — as noted by 2 later courts
Judge Shuster framed the issues before him on remand, noting as we had that the decisional principle of Horn v. Kean, 796 F.2d 668 (3d Cir.1986)on which we perceived Judge Carchman had previously relied in reaching the trial court result which generated the earlier appealhad been effectively overruled in Umbehr and O'Hare.
2 citing opinionsin part
Distinguished
Distinguished by Triad Associates, Inc. v. Chicago Housing Authority, 892 F.2d 583 (1990)
We reject Triad’s contention that the factual distinctions between this case and LaFalce and Horn mandate a different resolution of the first amendment issue.
The opinion
SEITZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
While I join in the essential points made and the result reached in Chief Judge Aldisert’s opinion, I write merely to note that I do not find it necessary to speak to some of the elaboration contained therein, e.g., the implicit criticism of the incorporation doctrine.