Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 305 FSUPP 169 - Dingess v. Hampton

Dingess v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
February 2007
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2007

2 federal appellate · 4 district ·

5019691970198019902000decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 5 U.S.C. § 1501 · 5 U.S.C. § 1502 · 5 U.S.C. § 1504 · 5 U.S.C. § 1506 · 5 U.S.C. § 1508

Relies on United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell · Golden v. Zwickler · Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission · W. E. B. DuBois Clubs of America v. Clark

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

  1. “Plaintiff’s curious insistence that he has violated the Act no matter what the Commission says seems at odds with his allegations of the critical importance to him of his job. His equally emphatic allegations that he proposes to go on violating the Act are also at apparent cross purposes with his argument founded upon the chilling effect of the Hatch Act. What is clear is that plaintiff disagrees with the policy considerations underlying the Congressional decision to extend the Hatch Act to the operations employees of the poverty program, and that he wants a nullification of that legislative judgment by the most expeditious means.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Enforcement by the [CSC] only after hearing may mean, in one case, that there is no adverse application of the statute to complain of, and, in the next, that the constitutional issue goes before the court on a fully developed record. It is not irrational for both Congress and court to think that the virtues of this approach in terms of the most efficient employment of judicial resources are to be weighed in the balance as against the claims even of the First Amendment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We do not think the mere fact that a constitutional objection to an Act of Congress is derived from the First Amendment automatically and invariably means that a court must resolve the issue in advance, and without the benefit, of the operation of the specific processes provided by Congress for the enforcement of the statute.”
    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.