Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 584 F.2d 178 - Paige v. Harris

Paige v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

584 F.2d 178 · 1978

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
July 1996
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 1996 · most notably Hadley v. County of Du Page (1983), Fiorentino v. United States (1979)

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

320197819801990decided

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 5 U.S.C. § 3301 (Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998) · 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments)

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Goldberg v. Kelly · Perry v. Sindermann · Paul v. Davis · Bishop v. Wood

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

  1. “(p)ositions other than those of a confidential or policy-determining character”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[t]he concept of liberty recognizes two particular interests of a public employee: 1) the protection of his good name, reputation, honor and integrity, and 2) his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.” Lipp v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 470 F.2d 802, 805 (7th Cir. 1972).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “charges of inadequate performance in the areas of 'Technical Expertise and Poor Judgment' and 'Supervisory Performance' and the alleged facts behind the charges, do not rise to the level of the 'degrading' and 'unsavory' charges which would 'expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule ....'”
    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.