Brown v. General Services Administration’s Empirical Analysis
507 F.2d 1300 · 1974
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2001 · most notably United States v. Testan (1976), Brown v. General Services Administration (1976)
32 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Preiser v. Rodriguez · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · McKart v. United States · Land US v. Dollar
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellees argue that, whatever may be the merits of the alternative bases for jurisdiction asserted by appellant, they are pre-empted by Section 717(c). 4 Neither the Act itself nor its legislative history conclusively demonstrates that such pre-emption was intended. Congress enacted Section 717(c) to provide a private right of ■ action for federal employees—a right it believed to have been previously non-existent or so difficult to enforce as to have been in effect nonexistent. The most persuasive argument in favor of pre-emption is that the Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity and as such must be strictly construed.” At 1306.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A suit against an officer of the United States is one against the United States itself ‘if the decree would operate against’ the sovereign, Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 58 , 83 S.Ct. 1052, 1053 , 10 L.Ed.2d 191 (1963); or if ‘the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration’, Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 738 , 67 S.Ct. 1009 , 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947); or if the effect of the judgment would be ‘to restrain the Government from acting, or to compel it to act’, Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corporation, 337 U.S. 682, 704 , 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1468 , 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“and the promotion was given to one of the white candidates for the position. Brown filed a complaint with the GSA Equal Employment Opportunity Office alleging that racial discrimination had biased the selection process. That complaint was withdrawn when Brown was told that other GS-9 positions would soon be available. 3 Another GS-9 position did become vacant in June 1971, for which the petitioner along with two others was recommended as”
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.