Ashley v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “Coming now to the Act of 1944, viewing this amendment as a part of a general and consistent scheme to define and protect veterans’ preferences, it seems clear that Congress considered dismissals and demotions as falling into one of two classes, (1) as a part of a reduction in force and (2) for cause. It may be conceded that greater efficiency in the particular division in which the plaintiff’s employment falls will be attained by his demotion rather than that of one of the two non-veteran employees. However, it would appear that the 1944 Act with the procedural rights which it accorded the veteran was dealing with dismissals or demotions for “cause” in the sense of the individual behavior or conduct of the employee, or, possibly, his capabilities and that when it spoke of promoting the efficiency of the service, in that part of the Act it had in mind promoting efficiency by the removal of incompetents. * * * If this section be construed to cover efficiency in the general organization and operation of the bureau, its effect would be in most cases to nullify the protection in the case of reduction of force because it could nearly always be successfully argued that a consolidation resulting in concentration of activities and economies in the payroll “will promote the efficiency of the service.” * * * I am of the opinion that the plaintiff’s demotion was not “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service” as that expression was intended to be applied in the Act of ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 128 Ct. Cl. 456 - Schweizer v. United States

2. “* * However, that section [section 14] relates to discharges'for cause, and the complaint itself alleges that the plaintiffs were “not separated for cause” but “on account of the reduction in the force in the Philadelphia Mint.”' Such reductions in force fall under § 12 of the Act, and are to be made “in accordance with Civil Service Commission regulations which shall give due effect to tenure of employment, military preference, length of service, and efficiency ratings.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 128 Ct. Cl. 456 - Schweizer v. United States

3. ““We [the Court] cannot, * * * ascribe to Congress an intention that in reductions in force large numbers of employees must be retained on the public payroll in a pay status for at least thirty days before they are released, although there may be no work for them to do, no funds from which to pay them, or both.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Duncan v. Blattenberger