Seebach v. Cullen’s Empirical Analysis
338 F.2d 663 · 1964
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Doe v. Hampton (1977), Robert P. Smith v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense (1975)
45 federal appellate · 1 district · 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
Relies on Keim v. United States · Newell M. Hargett v. Arthur E. Summerfield · Missouri Pacific Railroad Company 5 1/4% Secured Serial Bondholders Committee v. Guy A. Thompson, Trustee, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Debtor · Thomas v. Ward
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In discussing the role of the courts in reviewing the discharge of federal employees, we noted in Seebach v. Cullen, 338 F.2d 663, 664 (9th Cir. 1964): ‘Judicial review of dismissal from federal employment, a matter of executive agency discretion, is limited to a determination of whether the required procedural steps have been substantially complied with. Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290 , 20 S.Ct. 574 , 44 L.Ed. 774 . . . .’”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for such cause as will promote the efficiency of such service and for reasons given in writing.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * [W]e do not review findings of fact in cases such as this.”
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.