Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 416 F.3d 63 - Fornaro v. James

Fornaro v. James’s Empirical Analysis

416 F.3d 63 · 2005

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
1
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 46 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably General Electric Co. v. Jackson (2010), 898 F. Supp. 2d 233 - National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency (2012)

17 federal appellate · 46 district · 1 state decisions

550200520102020decided

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. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 8331 (Capitol Police Retirement Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 8347

Relies on United States v. Sherwood · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · Dugan v. Rank · Bush v. Lucas

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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a `drastic' remedy, to be `invoked only in extraordinary circumstances.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the practical effect of also deciding th[e] claims for benefits on the merits.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Congress, through the [CSRA] and related employment statutes, has carefully constructed a system for review and resolution of federal employment disputes, intentionally providing — and intentionally not providing — particular forums and procedures for particular kinds of claims. As such, we have held that this comprehensive employment scheme preempts judicial review under the more general APA even when that scheme provides no judicial relief — that is, `what you get under the CSRA is what you get.’”
    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.