Zuress v. Donley’s Empirical Analysis
606 F.3d 1249 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 10216 · 10 U.S.C. § 10217 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Feres v. United States · Chappell v. Wallace · United States v. Brown · United States v. Wells · Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman
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.
“Title VII claims arising from an ART’s military status constitute an impermissible “intrusion into military personnel decisions.” Nothing in the legislative history of § 10216(a)(1)(B) suggests that Congress intended to intrude on such military personnel decisions. Adopting the rule implied by appellant’s distinction would create an absolute right of ARTs, as dual status employees, to assert Title VII claims against the Air Force, even for claims arising from events falling wholly within “the military sphere.” Section 10216(a) does not countenance this result, and based on [the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision in] Brown we reject it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bowers v. Wynne
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.