Fitzgerald v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis
467 F.2d 755 · 1972
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 16 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1979)
30 federal appellate · 16 district · 11 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 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 5 U.S.C. § 1302 · 5 U.S.C. § 2108 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 7512 · 5 U.S.C. § 7701
Relies on Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · McKart v. United States · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... in administrative proceedings of a quasi-judicial character the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. These demand ‘a fair and open hearing,’essential alike to the legal validity of the administrative regulation and to the maintenance of public confidence in the value and soundness of this important governmental process ... when governmental agencies adjudicate or make binding determinations which directly affect the legal rights of individuals, it is imperative that those agencies use the procedures which have traditionally been associated with the judicial process.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]ere we to look no further than the stated reason for an employee’s separation, not only could an agency cavalierly discharge preference eligibles under the guise of a “reduction-in-force” but under that type of action it could also deprive them of all adverse action procedural rights to which preference eligibles are entitled .... [emphasis in original].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] party may bypass established avenues for review within the agency only where the issue in question cannot be raised from a later order of the agency . ., or where the agency has very clearly violated an important constitutional or statutory right.”
2 later decisions 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.