Albert v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
437 F.2d 976 · 1971
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 5106 · 5 U.S.C. § 5107 · 5 U.S.C. § 5337 · 5 U.S.C. § 7511 · 5 U.S.C. § 7512
Relies on Michigan v. Ohio · Rodriguez v. Lash · Schlegel v. United States · Daniels v. United States · SPARTAN'S INDUSTRIES v. Texas
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) ascertain currently the facts as to the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements of a position; (2) place in an appropriate class and grade a newly created position or a position coming initially under this chapter; (3) decide whether a position is in its appropriate class and grade; and (4) change a position from one class or grade to another class or grade when the facts warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * The dispute really is that management considers the positions to be less demanding than the employees do. A judgment of this type necessarily invokes discretion and expertise —a weighing of varied factors, tangible and intangible * * *. Albert, supra, at 101, 437 F.2d, at 979 .”
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.