McCready v. Nicholson’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.3d 1 · 2006
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 60 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Sussman v. United States Marshals Service (2007), Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan (2010)
17 federal appellate · 60 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 Doe v. Chao Secretary of Labor · Tao v. Freeh L · Valencia-Lucena v. United States Coast Guard · George v. Leavitt · Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D. C., Inc. v. National Security Agency
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fails to maintain any record concerning any individual with such accuracy, rele- vanee, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights, or opportunities of, or benefits to the individual that may be made on the basis of such record, and consequently a determination is made which is adverse to the individual.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [that the plaintiff] has been aggrieved by an adverse determination; (2) [that] the agency failed to maintain [the plaintiffs] records with the degree of accuracy necessary to assure fairness in the determination; [and] (3) [that] the agency’s reliance on the inaccurate records was the proximate cause of the adverse determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where an aggrieved person can identify a specific document, prove its inaccuracy, and demonstrate that the document was used against [him], all the values of the Act are vindicated.”). 3 . Plaintiff has named as defendants BOP Director Harley G. Lappin and the Department of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lopez v. Huff
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.