Peter J. Finley v. Robert E. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 180 · 1972
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Sullivan v. Murphy (1973), Menard v. Saxbe (1974)
24 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 7532
Relies on Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any rights of a Government employee or applicant must be founded on a Congressional statute, expressly or by fair implication, * * * or a constitutional imperative”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Finley contends that the gathering and retention of information concerning his acquaintances and their mannerisms has a ‘chilling effect’ upon the exercise of his right to freedom of association. ‘Allegations of a subjective “chill” are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm. . . .’ Laird v. Tatum, supra, at 13-14 , 92 S.Ct. at 2325 . See also, United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 , 67 S.Ct. 556 , 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947) (cited with approval in Laird v. Tatum); Davis v. Ichord, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 183 , 442 F.2d 1207 (1970). Thus, to present a justiciable controversy, it must be shown that the asserted inhibition upon the exercise of constitutional rights arises in the context of an extant or imminently threatened governmental sanction.”11”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining, a direct injury as the result of that action * * * ””
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.