Gilbert v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 4108 · 38 U.S.C. § 4110 · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments) · 5 U.S.C. § 7512
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Morrissey v. Brewer · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Goldberg v. Kelly
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the posture in which he found himself, the acceptance of this type of negotiated settlement would be tantamount to an admission on his part that his removal as Associate Chief of Staff, and his ultimate discharge were justified. The refusal to accept the Little Rock negotiated settlement was not unreasonable in light of Dr. Gilbert’s knowledge that Drs. Jones and Jarman had endeavored to smear his professional reputation with negative references, including the allegation that he was “mentally ill” and “homicidal.” Dr. Gilbert believed, and would so testify, that the only way to repair his reputation and reclaim his professional prestige was by ... reinstatement ... Letter Brief filed February 9, 1976, p. 16.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a very creative, dynamic and aggressive individual, but, functioning alone, he has brought about piecemeal and slow progress ... Dr. Gilbert, apparently almost single-handedly, has performed the real selection of programs, enticement of investigators (which have been few) to the program, and monitoring of the varied projects. His efforts have seemingly provided the communications between investigators after the initial approach of cross-fertilization of ideas failed because of lack of attendance at research conferences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Institutional [i.e., VA] scientific direction [for the Research Program] is lacking. Local facilities in Atlanta ... have been virtually neglected as possible sources of research collaboration or advice. A negative attitude toward research, prevailing in the past at the VAH and to some degree within some Emory clinical departments, has contributed to the small interest in research in the past of the faculty, staff or house staff of the VAH....”
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.