Beale v. Blount’s Empirical Analysis
461 F.2d 1133 · 1972
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Bk Instrument Inc v. United States Lf US Cecom (1983), Sheehan v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service (1980)
58 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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 Monroe v. Pape · Picard v. Connor · McNeese v. Board of Education for Community Unit School District 187 Cahokia · Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Aragon · Federal Housing Administration, Region No. 4 v. Burr
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction . . .of: * * * * * -X- (2) Any other civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States . . . (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Beale deliberately refused to permit the postal authorities to consider his claim that he had received the excessive punishment of dismissal solely be cause of his race. Instead, he withheld that claim in order to raise it in the first instance in a federal court. Such a strategy, it appears to us, is calculated to disrupt the operation of the postal service’s internal program aimed at the elimination of racial discrimination in employment. We are constrained to hold that Beale’s refusal to raise the racial discrimination issue during the course of administrative review of the decision to terminate his postal employment is tantamount to a deliberate bypass of available administrative remedies. Exhaustion of those remedies has not taken place.”
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.