George Connelly v. Paul H. Nitze, Secretary of the Navy’s Empirical Analysis
401 F.2d 416 · 1968
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1985 · most notably Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management (1985), Brewer v. United States Postal Service (1981)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 Vitarelli v. Seaton · Dabney v. Freeman
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have pointed out before that these employee discharge cases, although in form original actions in the District Court, are in reality agency review proceedings and are normally treated ns such by all parties. Dabney v. Freeman, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 166 , 358 F.2d 533 (1965). This creates difficulties, as here, in our ability to give, effectively and expeditiously, the most appropriate kind of relief. It also raises questions as to why Congress should not provide for statutory direct review of Civil Service Commission determinations in employee cases, comparable to that now employed in respect of other major federal administrative agencies.” Connelly v. Nitze, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 351 , 401 F.2d 416 , 417 n. 1 (1968). However, as Judge Stahl pointed out in questioning the majority’s assumxxtion that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 , applied to such cases in Charlton v. United States, 412 F.2d 390, 396 (3rd Cir. 1969), “the power of the courts to review claims by government emxiloyees alleging improper dismissal is too well established to be rejected here.””
3 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.