Christian v. New York State Department of Labor’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 15 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2008 · most notably Arnett v. Kennedy (1974), Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)
35 federal appellate · 15 district · 13 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 5 U.S.C. § 8501 · 5 U.S.C. § 8506 · 5 U.S.C. § 8508
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Morrissey v. Brewer · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Bell v. Burson · McKart v. United States
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor plainly attach great significance to the right of the discharged employee to have the employing agency reconsider its stated reasons for his discharge. The crucial requirement that triggers this reconsideration is the obligation imposed upon the state agency to notify the applicant of the content of the federal findings, which notice “shall [also] inform the Federal civilian employee of his right to additional information or reconsideration and correction of such findings.” 20 C.F.R. § 609.20 . Thereupon, the employee may obtain additional information from the employing agency concerning the basis of its findings, § 609.22. Whether or not he avails himself of that opportunity, he may file a request for reconsideration and correction, “together with such information as supports his request, through the State agency before which the claim is pending. ...” § 609.23. Upon receipt of such a request, the federal agency must consider any information submitted by the employee, promptly correct any errors or omissions, and either affirm, modify, or reverse its original findings in writing. § 609.9. Finally, the State is required to stay its adjudicatory process pending federal reconsideration, although it is conclusively bound by any factual findings of the federal agency, §§ 609.23(a), 609.18(c), when it applies its own law to redetermine eligibility. §§ 609.24(c), (d).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. is not whether there is to be some form of adversary proceeding, but whether that proceeding must be as elaborate as appellants contend. That determination would be hazardous on the scant record before us. The regulations appear capable of accommodating various kinds of issues We cannot know at this stage what particular procedures will be applied, whether credibility determinations will arise, [or] how they will be treated if they do Removal of these uncertainties from the ease may significantly advance judicial resolution of appellants’ claims, while occasioning no great cost to them.” (footnotes omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““it is generally more efficient for the administrative process to go forward without interruption than it is to permit the parties to seek aid from the courts at various intermediate stages.” (Christian v. New York State Department of Labor, Division of Employment, 414 U.S. 614, 622 , 94 S.Ct. 747, 752 , 39 L.Ed.2d 38 (1974).”
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.