Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 F.3d 1098 - Trimmer v. United States Department of Labor

Trimmer v. United States Department of Labor’s Empirical Analysis

174 F.3d 1098 · 1999

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
3
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably O'ROURKE v. Commonwealth (2001), Custer County Action Ass'n v. Garvey (2001)

23 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

3701999200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 5851 · 5 U.S.C. § 557 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Manufacturing Co. · Sibley Memorial Hospital v. Wilson

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The substantial-evidence standard does not allow a court to displace the [Agencies'] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Whistleblower provisions are intended to promote a working environment in which employees are relatively free from the debilitating threat of employment reprisals for publicly asserting company violations of [protection] statutes[.] They are not, however, intended to be used by employees to shield themselves from the consequences of their own misconduct or failures.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that [protected] behavior.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.