Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 417 F.2d 1161 - Norton v. Macy

Norton v. Macy’s Empirical Analysis

417 F.2d 1161 · 1969

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
May 2009
most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 16 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2009 · most notably Sampson v. Murray (1974), 1 Cal. 3d 214 - Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969)

73 federal appellate · 16 district · 14 state decisions

90019691970198019902000decided

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 5 U.S.C. § 7512

Relies on Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Boyd v. United States · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Olmstead 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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a)ppellant's duties apparently did not bring him into contact with the public, and his fellow employees were unaware of his 'immorality.' " 417 F.2d at 1164, 1165, 1167. In each of these respects, the case before us must be distinguished. Moreover, the court in Norton stated that: 40 if (an employee's) conduct is notorious, the reactions of other employees and of the public with whom he comes in contact in the performance of his official functions may be taken into account. Whether or not such potential consequences would justify removal, they are at least broadly relevant to "the efficiency of the service.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(T)he notion that it could be an appropriate function of the federal bureaucracy to enforce the majority's conventional codes of conduct in the private lives of its employees is at war with elementary concepts of liberty (and) privacy " Id. at 1165. The reasoning of Norton v. Macy is compelling. The Beller panel seeks, therefore, to factually distinguish the Navy regulation before it. Seizing upon the "nature of the employer,”
    3 later decisions 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.