Gonzalez v. Gonzalez’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1995
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Morrissey v. Brewer · Ex Parte: Edward T Young
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Prior to September 16, 1970, plaintiff was a regular employee of the Commonwealth’s Department of Labor (since September 8, 1944) and was in the competitive service. (2) On September 16,1970, at the request of the then Secretary of Social Services, Efrain Santiago, Plaintiff, hav ing agreed to accept appointment as “Executive Director IV” in the Department of Social Services was transferred to that department. Upon his arrival at the Department of Social Services, plaintiff signed official form “OP-15.” That form stated that his position as “Executive Director IV” was in the non-competitive service. 8 (3) On October 27, 1971, the Director of Personnel — citing § 648(d) as his authorization — included the position of “Executive Director IV” in the competitive service. (He had been requested to do so by Mr. Efrain Santiago on October 8,1971, plaintiff having discussed the form OP-15 matter with Mr. Santiago at some time subsequent to September 16, 1970.) (4) In January, 1973 defendant Elisa Diaz Gonzalez became Secretary of Social Services and defendant Milagros Guzman became Director of Personnel. They are members of a political party different from plaintiff’s and their party had won the Puerto Rican elections in 1972. (5) On March 30, 1973 defendant Elisa Diaz Gonzalez requested of defendant Milagros Guzman an opinion as to the legality of the employment status of plaintiff (among others). Defendant Milagros Guzman replied on April 13, 1973 that plaintiff had improperly ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““After a thorough study, the State Personnel Office has determined that the action taken in including you in the Competitive Service, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8, Sub-section (d) of the Personnel Act, is illegal. Therefore, you continue as an employee in the Non-competitive Service. “Pursuant to this letter and effective within thirty (30) days from the receipt of this communication, I have decided to terminate your services as Executive Director IV (Assistant Secretary of Administration).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Mrs. Guzman’s opinion was to the effect that the approval made under the provisions of Section 648(d) of Title 3, Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated, by the former Director of Personnel of the former Secretary of Social Services’ petition with respect to plaintiff’s position, was illegal for . . . at the time of the approval plaintiff was not in the Competitive Service, but contrarywise, in the Non-Competitive Service.” 385 F.Supp. at 1232.”
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.