Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 494 F.2d 830 - Kenneth R. Davis v. S. Ernest Vandiver, William H. Kelly and Paul E. Innecken

Kenneth R. Davis v. S. Ernest Vandiver, William H. Kelly and Paul E. Innecken’s Empirical Analysis

494 F.2d 830 · 1974

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
6
states following
June 2008
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably Terrell v. University of Texas System Police (1986), Thurston v. Dekle (1976)

18 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

1901974198019902000decided

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 Arnett v. Kennedy · Meehan v. Macy · Meehan v. Macy

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ . . . our hand is clearly guided by [Arnett], inasmuch as six Justices expressly concurred in the proposition that a post-termination hearing was sufficient to protect those interests meriting due process protection, whether those interests were in the nature of ‘property’ or ‘liberty.’ The plurality opinion in Arnett indicated that by incorporating express procedures into the statute which also conferred rights on federal employees, Congress delineated the full extent of the ‘property interest’ enjoyed by the employee in continued retention of his post.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Davis was provided with notice of the charge and granted a reasonable opportunity to respond prior to his discharge. Subsequent to his dismissal he was afforded a full-scale evidentiary hearing presided over by a hearing examiner. Arnett demands no more.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The National Guard Technician Act of 1968, 32 U.S.C.A. § 709 . . . confer(red) federal status on civilian technicians . . . .”
    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.