Testan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
499 F.2d 690 · 1974
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 5 U.S.C. § 5101 · 5 U.S.C. § 5596
Relies on United States v. King · United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. · Peter J. Migliorini v. New York · Johnson v. Stevenson · Keim v. United States
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that officers of the United States shall be appointed by the President or the heads of the departments, as Congress may direct. There is no other way a person can obtain a government job. See United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525 [ 8 S.Ct. 595 , 31 L.Ed. 534 ] (1888); United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303 [ 8 S.Ct. 505 , 31 L.Ed. 463 ] (1888); and Thomason v. United States, 85 F.Supp. 742 (N.D. Cal.1948), aff’d, 184 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1950). Government employment is not a contract, is not property and the due process clause of the Constitution does not apply. Bailey v. Richardson, supra [ 86 U.S.App.D.C. 248 , 182 F.2d 46 (1950), aff’d, 341 U.S. 918 , 71 S.Ct. 669 , 95 L.Ed. 1352 (1951)]; Crenshaw v. United States, 134 U.S. 99 [ 10 S.Ct. 431 , 33 L.Ed. 825 ] (1890); Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 [ 20 S.Ct. 1009 , 44 L.Ed. 1187 ] (1900), and Jenson v. Olson, supra [ 353 F.2d 825 (8th Cir. 1965)]. Since the plaintiffs were never appointed to these jobs, they had no vested or property rights in them. Consequently when they were not promoted, they were not denied anything that they had a right to. [ 499 F.2d at 693 , 205 Ct.Cl. 330 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“all belong to a small readily manageable cadre, their jobs have a large nexus of duties shared in common, and the other employees are specifically pointed out by the complaining employees.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is the function of the agency rather than the court to make promotions, and to allow plaintiff to recover on this theory would be in effect granting a promotion to plaintiff. It is well settled that this court’s jurisdiction extends only to the granting of a monetary judgment, [citations omitted].”
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.