374 F. Supp. 2d 121 - Gallucci v. Chao’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 8101 (Attendant Allowance Adjustment Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 8102 · 5 U.S.C. § 8113 · 5 U.S.C. § 8115 · 5 U.S.C. § 8124
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Hudson v. Palmer · Califano v. Sanders
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unlawfully depriving a claimant of benefits does not violate due process because FECA provides for meaningful post-deprivation remedies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not subject to review ... by a court by mandamus or otherwise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fundamental requirements of due process are 'notice and [an] opportunity to respond.' " Gallucci , 374 F.Supp.2d at 126 (quoting Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill , 470 U.S. 532 , 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) ). Even where a person is "unlawfully deprived of property,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nurriddin v. Acosta
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.