Spagnola v. Mathis’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2014
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 421 (§ 221 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 1206 · 5 U.S.C. § 1207 · 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002) · 5 U.S.C. § 2302 · 5 U.S.C. § 3318
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Bush v. Lucas · Chappell v. Wallace · Schweiker v. Chilicky · Poland v. Arizona
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“5 U.S.C. Sec. 2302(b)(11) (1982). One such merit principle provides: All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management ... with proper regard for their ... constitutional rights. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2301(b)(2) (1982). Both Hubbard's and Spagnola's allegations implicate this principle squarely and we are therefore convinced that their constitutional claims are cognizable as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spagnola v. Mathis“may be less than clear, there can be little doubt as to whether Congress has brought claims like those advanced by Hubbard and Spagnola within CSRA's ambit. This is because the CSRA itself, in one fashion or another, affirmatively speaks to claims such as Hubbard's and Spagnola's by condemning the underlying actions as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spagnola v. Mathis“within the CSRA system. See Pinar v. Dole, 747 F.2d 899 , 906 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1016, 105 S.Ct. 2019, 85 L.Ed.2d 301 (1985). See also H.R. REP. NO. 1717, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 131 (1978) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 2723, 2853 (observing that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spagnola v. Mathis
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.