Greene v. McElroy’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
950 federal appellate · 237 district · 735 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,896 later decisions (117 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), Wolff v. McDonnell (1974)
950 federal appellate · 237 district · 735 state decisions — followed in 47 states
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
reviewedWilliam L. Greene v. Neil H. McElroy Secretary of Defense (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 10 U.S.C. § 2306 · 18 U.S.C. § 798 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 50 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 2 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 50 U.S.C. § 783
Relies on Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath · In re Oliver · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Mattox v. United States
Cited together with Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Goldberg v. Kelly · Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath · Davis v. Alaska
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 2,896 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government’s case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue.”
83 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the 'liberty' and 'property' concepts of the Fifth Amendment.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n the context of security clearance cases, ... it must be made clear that the President or Congress, within their respective constitutional powers, specifically has decided that the imposed procedures are necessary and warranted and has authorized their use. Such decisions cannot be assumed by acquiescence or nonaction. They must be made explicitly not only to assure that individuals are not deprived of cherished rights under procedures not actually authorized, but also because explicit action, especially in areas of doubtful constitutionality, requires careful and purposeful consideration by those responsible for enacting and implementing our laws. Without explicit action by lawmakers, decisions of great constitutional import and effect would be relegated by default to administrators who, under our system of government, are not endowed with authority to decide them.”
20 later decisions 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.