Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 260 F.3d 123 - John Brennan

John Brennan’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Klamath Irrigation District v. United States (2005), Delaware Trust Co. v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (2015)

7 district · 2 state decisions

180200120102020decided

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

Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Donaldson v. United States · Lorance v. At&t Technologies, Inc. · United States Postal Service v. Brennan · Edwards v. City of Houston

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

  1. “(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: ... (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If a [Beneficiary] obtains a desirable transfer, all comparable employees with more seniority than [a Brennan interve-nor] but less than that of the [Beneficiary] may seek transfers at the next level of desirability, thereby foreclosing the particular appellant. The effects of the loss of relative seniority are not easily forecast and may not even be perceived as they happen. To take an alphabetical example, if employee Z is moved up to just above employee A, then the effects of that move on employee T will turn on the preferences of employees A through S. Where transfers among buildings are concerned, size (and therefore salary) will be important in determining whether an employee will exercise seniority to seek a transfer, but some employees will also be motivated by other factors, such as location. If employee Z secures a transfer, a chain reaction will begin with various openings and transfers occurring based on a variety of decisions by A through S. After all is played out, employee T may well find it impossible to reconstruct what transfer might have been available to him/her but for the moving-up of employee Z.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[wjhether appellants ... have a property right in the[ir] [positions] simply has nothing to do with th[e] issue from either point of view. While it is the case that a provisional [employee] might not be entitled to procedural due process in a termination proceeding based on poor performance because of a lack of a property interest, an adverse employment action based on race, ethnicity, or gender is clearly illegal. To hold otherwise would require civil rights plaintiffs generally to show a property interest in the position in question.”
    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.