Scott v. Macy’s Empirical Analysis
349 F.2d 182 · 1965
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1992 · most notably Whisenhunt v. Spradlin (1983), Doe v. Hampton (1977)
24 federal appellate · 16 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 Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath · Shelton v. Tucker · United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell · Greene v. McElroy
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant is an applicant for public employment, and thus may have less statutory protection against exclusion than an employee. But he is not without constitutional protection. 8 The Constitution does not distinguish between applicants and employees; both are entitled, like other people, to equal protection against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by the Government. The Executive may have discretion in hiring or firing, but ‘[discretionary power does not carry with it the right to its arbitrary exercise.’ Shachtman v. Dulles, 96 U.S. App.D.C. 287, 290, 225 F.2d 938, 941 (1955).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ . . . But the broad letter of 5 U.S.C. § 631 is far from inconsistent with a Congressional purpose that ‘each candidate' who ‘seeks to enter’ federal employment shall have a fair opportunity to assert his ‘fitness’, both affirmatively and by way of opportunity to know of, and to defend against asserted personal shortcomings which are officially characterized as ‘immoral conduct’ within the meaning of regulations issued in implementation of the statute. . . .” 13 Id. at 186”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Disqualification from consideration for all federal employment is not, in my view, a status which can arbitrarily be imposed upon any citizen. I think it was arbitrary, on this record, for appellant to be disqualified for ‘immoral conduct’ and to be told, in response to his request for a specification, only that he had engaged in ‘homosexual conduct’. . . . ” Id. at 186”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.