Jacobowitz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
424 F.2d 555 · 1970
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Grover v. United States (1973), Power v. United States (1976)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Diaz v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · Tennessee Burley Tobacco Growers' Ass'n v. Range · S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In any event, we agree with plaintiff that his discharge on Count I after 22 years of satisfactory government service was too harsh and out of all proportion to the offense charged. We have held that a dismissal under such circumstances is an abuse of discretion, is illegal, and demands redress by this court * * *. [Jacobowitz v. United States, 191 Ct. Cl. 444, 458-59 , 424 F. 2d 555, 563 (1970)].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“... since “substantial evidence” includes more than “uncorroborated hearsay” and “more than a mere scintilla,” the findings, to be valid, cannot be based on hearsay alone, nor upon hearsay corroborated by a mere scintilla. Founded upon these requirements, the test whether evidence is “substantial,” is whether, in the in dividual case before the court, there is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * [I]t is clear that the hearsay evidence of the government was not substantial evidence, regardless of the definition or test that is used. It was uncorroborated hearsay and was objected to by the plaintiff; it was contradicted by direct, legal, and competent evidence at the hearing; and it was not such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. [191 Ct.Cl. at-, 424 F.2d at 562 ],”
1 later decision 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.