Kennedy v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably 7 Cal. 3d 150 - Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972), 7 Cal. 3d 861 - City of Inglewood-Los Angeles County Civic Center Authority v. Superior Court (1972)
3 federal appellate · 51 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
Relies on Zottman v. City & County of San Francisco · West Coast Advertising Co. v. City & County of San Francisco · Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long Beach · Millholen v. Riley · State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Riley
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A reading of the entire text of said several sections indicates clearly that it was the intention of the framers of the charter that civil service should apply only to persons employed in permanent positions in municipal departments to the end that public service should be free from political shifting and control resulting from changes in administration. If section 142 were to be given the literal application suggested by respondent, it would be impossible for the municipality to make an independent contract with any person or corporation to render an extraordinary service or to make surveys with a view of legislation on behalf of the municipality. ‘ ‘ The proposed contractor is not to be placed in any position provided for by the charter. He is to be engaged under a contract to do a specific job and all of the assistants which he will employ from the typist in his office to his most highly paid engineer are to be instrumentalities of his own choosing and for whom he is to be responsible. They do not become city employees in the sense of that word, as used in reference to the classified service, but are to be employees of the engineer whose contract requires that he supply the city with estimates, plans, programs and reports, such as will enable the municipality to advance the public welfare by the improve ment of conditions with respect to which his services will be rendered. “. . . Merely because Purcell’s appointees will render services for the city does not place such ap”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The provisions of the charter do not foreclose the authorized agency from entering into contracts with individuals for the performance of professional services as independent contractors.” See, also, City of Oakland v. Williams, 15 Cal. 2d 542 [ 103 P.2d 168 ] and Burum v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 30 Cal.2d 575 [ 184 P.2d 505 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Neither the board of supervisors, nor its committees, nor any of its members shall dictate, suggest or interfere with appointments, promotions, compensations, disciplinary actions, contracts, requisitions for purchase or other administrative recommendations ... under the respective boards and commissions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.