384 F. Supp. 218 - Rubio v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Perry v. Sindermann · Arnett v. Kennedy · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Studemeyer v. Macy
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(I) Were the procedural requirements of the statutes and regulations complied with; and (II) was the action of the department officials arbitrary or capricious or not supported by substantial evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We believe the . . . cases articulating the ‘substantial evidence’ test, as well as applying the ‘arbitrary or capricious’ and ‘procedural requirements’ tests, the better as well as the newer view.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not create an expectancy of job retention in those employees requiring procedural protection under the Due Process Clause beyond that afforded here by the statute and related agency regulations.”
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.