Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 345 U.S. 128 - Ramspeck v. Federal Trial Examiners Conference

Ramspeck v. Federal Trial Examiners Conference’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

187
cited by 187 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

79 federal appellate · 30 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 187 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Butz v. Economou (1978), Mullen v. Bowen (1986)

79 federal appellate · 30 district · 4 state decisions

60019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedRamspeck v. Federal Trial Examiners Conference (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath · Calmar Steamship Corp. v. United States · Central Railroad v. Department of Public Utilities · Federal Trial Examiners Conference v. Ramspeck

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

  1. “(a) An action may bé taken against an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of this title by the agency in which the administrative law judge is employed only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board. (b) The actions covered by this sec: tion are— (1) a removal; (2) a suspension; (3) a reduction in grade; (4) a reduction in pay; and (5) a furlough of 30 days or less”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The position of hearing examiners is not a constitutionally protected position. It is a creature of congressional enactment. . . . They hold their posts by such tenure as Congress sees fit to give them.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Congress intended to make hearing examiners 'a special class of semi-independent subordinate hearing officers' by vesting control of their compensation, promotion and tenure in the Civil Service Commission to a much greater extent than in the case of other federal employees.”
    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.