Ryder v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
585 F.2d 482 · 1978
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Doyle v. United States (1979), Doyle v. United States (1979)
13 federal appellate · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Bishop v. Wood · Arnett v. Kennedy · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co.
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.
“[W]here a serious procedural curtailment mars an adverse personnel action which deprives the employee of pay, the court has regularly taken the position that the defect divests the removal (or demotion) of legality .... In that situation, the merits of the adverse action are wholly disregarded.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[0]ne of the fundamental premises inherent in the concept of an adversary hearing, particularly if it is of the evidentiary type, is that neither adversary be permitted to engage in an ex parte communication concerning the merits of the case with those responsible for the decision.... It is difficult to imagine a more serious incursion on fairness than to permit the representative of one of the parties to privately communicate his recommendations to the decision makers. To allow such activity would be to render the hearing virtually meaningless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * plaintiff did not raise this issue because he did not know at the time of its existence. * * * Of course plaintiff is not required to raise points (during the administrative process) with factual components of which he was unaware and had no reason to suspect or know.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.