458 F. Supp. 945 - Neely v. Blumenthal’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2025
2 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1089 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · United States v. Testan · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Brown did not address the question of Title VII’s preemptive effect on discrimination suits brought against individual officers for damages.... Broum was decided on the basis of the sovereign immunity doctrine, a doctrine that curtails the ability of claimants to obtain official relief against the federal government, including relief taking the form of retroactive promotion and back pay.... Sovereign immunity serves to protect the federal government from unconsented suits that go to invading the public treasury and mandating governmental action .... But the doctrine does not extend to protect government officers from personal liabilities arising out of their official activities.... Taking the Federal Tort Claims Act as a model, it emerges that waivers of sovereign immunity do not in and of themselves affect preexisting remedies available against individual officials.... Since nothing in Title VII reveals an intent to disturb avenues of relief against discriminating officials in their personal capacities, Brawn’s preemption rule stands circumscribed to the extent of cutting off only official remedies for federal employment discrimination.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he relief afforded by Title VII, including the monetary back pay component, is of course directed at the government, ... plaintiff has no right to insist that his recovery come out of the pocketbooks of his superiors rather than out of governmental funds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Baird v. Haith“no sound reason for treating the claims separately by implying a damage cause of action not authorized by Congress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.