A. Ernest Fitzgerald v. Robert C. Seamans, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis
553 F.2d 220 · 1977
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 43 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 181 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2021 · most notably Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Hobson v. Wilson (1984)
74 federal appellate · 43 district · 21 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
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Kotteakos v. United States · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Brown v. General Services Administration
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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“deliberate concealment of material facts”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since appellant had the option to bring an action for the harm done to him by appellees concurrently with his recourse to the CSC [Civil Service Commission], he cannot now untimely invoke the judicial remedy because the administrative one does not make him whole. The choice of whether to pursue one remedy or the other, or both, may be difficult, but Fitzgerald had the choice, and was not barred from the damages action by an exhaustion requirement. There was no guarantee that the CSC route would be successful, speedy, or complete. But the administrative and judicial remedies were independent. And the limitations period ran on the judicial remedy independently of the CSC proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellant claims not to have known at the time of the [Civil Service Commission] appeal letter of the conspiracy against him, and to have only later learned the identities of some of the conspirators and the meetings held concerning him. The CSC appeal letter does not use the words of conspiracy. What matters is that appellant knew of facts and actions pointing toward retaliation by the Air Force for his congressional testimony. 11”
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.