Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 321 F.2d 31 - McEachern v. United States

McEachern v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

321 F.2d 31 · 1963

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
May 1984
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 1984 · most notably Kletschka v. Driver (1969), Carter v. Seamans (1969)

25 federal appellate · 9 district ·

280196319701980decided

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 5 U.S.C. § 1001 · 5 U.S.C. § 1009 · 5 U.S.C. § 1010

Relies on Keim v. United States · Newell M. Hargett v. Arthur E. Summerfield · Carter v. Forrestal · United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co. · Robinson v. United States

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

  1. ““Subject to the civil-service and other laws to the extent not inconsistent with this chapter, there shall be appointed by and for each agency as many qualified and competent examiners as may be necessary for proceedings pursuant to sections 1006 and 1007 of this title, who shall be assigned to cases in rotation so far as practicable and shall perform no duties inconsistent with their duties and responsibilities as examiners. Examiners shall be removable by the agency in which they are employed only for good cause established and determined by the Civil Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) after opportunity for hearing and upon the record thereof. -» * *»”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[Djistriet courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.””
    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.