Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 402 F.2d 644 - Scott v. Macy

Scott v. Macy’s Empirical Analysis

402 F.2d 644 · 1968

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
March 1985
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1985 · most notably Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management (1985), Doe v. Hampton (1977)

31 federal appellate · 8 district ·

390196819701980decided

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 Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Orloff v. Willoughby · Garner v. Board of Public Works · Nelson v. County of Los Angeles · 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““.....federal applicants for employment do not, wholly apart from Fifth Amendment concerns, forfeit all rights of privacy accorded to persons generally by the First Amendment, and that the reasonableness of requiring answers to certain questions may be greatly affected by the clarity and rationality of the policies sought to be effectuated by the questions. Where disclosure is required of circumstances of an intensely private and personal nature, the discloser is arguably entitled to know the standards by which his revelations will be assessed.” P. 648.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “That some human infirmities are beyond the control of the applicant may be unfortunate but it does not undermine the power of the Executive to hire only those whose employment will “best promote the efficiency” of the public service. Do my colleagues now decide sub silentio that the government must employ sex deviates or that the efficiency of public service is promoted by doing so? Or do they decide that questions may not be asked by the Commission if investigation reveals arrests or association with known criminals or convictions which the applicant did not reveal? (Footnote omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Homosexuality and Sexual Perversion — Persons about whom there is evidence that they have engaged in or solicited others to engage in homosexual or sexually perverted acts with them, without evidence of rehabilitation, are not suitable for Federal employment.””
    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.