Gilbert v. James’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 611 · 10 U.S.C. § 621 · 10 U.S.C. § 628 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · United States v. Mitchell · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer · Bowen v. Massachusetts
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Your evaluation of minority and women officers must clearly afford them fair and equitable consideration. Equal opportunity for all officers is an essential element of our selection system. In your evaluation of the records of minority and women officers, you should be particularly sensitive to the possibility that past individual and societal attitudes, and in some instances utilization policies or practices, may have placed these officers at a disadvantage from a total career perspective. The board shall prepare for review by the Secretary and Chief of Staff, a report of minority and women officer selections as compared to the selection rates for all officers considered by the board.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gilbert v. Wilson“) at 3, ECF No. 38-2. After the Board summarily denied their requests for reconsideration, Am. Compl. ¶ 46, AR at 41, the plaintiffs filed the instant action on August 11, 2014. On September 22, 2015, this Court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Board's”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gilbert v. Wilson“) is authorized to convene promotion selection boards to recommend active-duty officers for promotion. See 10 U.S.C. § 611 . Following an initial promotion decision, the Secretary is empowered to modify retrospectively a current or former service member's military record when necessary”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gilbert v. Wilson
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.