Santana v. M Caldern’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[j]udging the matter in all the nakedness in which it is presented, namely, the claim that the [Governor] could remove a [Registrar] of an adjudicatory body like the [Copyright Registry] merely because he wanted his own appointees on such a [position], [the Court is] compelled to conclude that no such power is given to the President [Governor] directly bye the Constitution, and none is impliedly conferred upon him by statute simply because Congress said nothing about it. The philosophy of Humphrey’s Executor, in its explicit language as well as its implications, precludes such a claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 392 F. Supp. 2d 148 - Hoffman v. Mercado

2. ““We cannot conclude that the defendants had notice that their removal of the plaintiff from her position would violate clearly established law. Given the purely executive nature of the Executive Director position, the position’s limited policy making function, and the Governor’s general power of removal, it was reasonable for defendants to believe that Santana did not have a property interest in continued employment and that her termination therefore was not subject to constitutional due process protection.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Santana v. María Calderón

3. ““By contrast, if the statute establishing the Executive Director position is interpreted as guaranteeing a four-year term, the Governor’s power to assure that the Executive Director is competently performing her responsibilities is severely impaired. Hence, on the limited record before us on interlocutory appeal, it appears that the position of Executive Director of the HRODC may fall within the Governor’s constitutional power of removal under a Morrison-type analysis.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Santana v. María Calderón