Schwartz v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.2d 430 · 1974
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Hadley v. County of Du Page (1983), Nunez v. City of Los Angeles (1998)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Perry v. Sindermann · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Arnett v. Kennedy · 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e believe the Court [in Roth] was thinking of something considerably graver than a charge of failure to perform a particular job, lying within the employee’s power to correct; the cases cited as illustrations involved charges of chronic alcoholism or association with subversive organizations. Indeed, a general rule that informing an employee of job-related reasons for termination created a right to a hearing, in circumstances where there was no constitutional requirement for the state to do anything, would be self-defeating; the state would merely opt to give no reasons and the employee would lose the benefit of knowing what might profit him in the future.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a promotion would be virtually a matter of right for example, where it was solely a function of seniority or tied to other objective criteria . . .,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.... Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.