Fiorentino v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 963 · 1979
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Holley v. United States (1997), Hadley v. County of Du Page (1983)
23 federal appellate · 6 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 42 U.S.C. § 1395O (§ 1836 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 3302 · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974) · 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments)
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Perry v. Sindermann · Arnett v. Kennedy · Federal Crop Ins Corporation v. Merrill · 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is unfortunately all too common for government manuals, handbooks, and in-house publications to contain statements that were not meant or are not wholly reliable. If they go counter to governing statutes ..., they do not bind the government, and persons relying on them do so at their peril.” 221 Ct.Cl. at 552 , 607 F.2d at 968 . (Emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[if] the consent to be sued here ever included the back pay claim of one having no property interest in his job, and legally aggrieved solely because of derogatory material in government files generated by his firing, we think that consent is withdrawn by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. It provides an administrative remedy for one so aggrieved, and if he is unsuccessful with that, he can sue in the U.S. District Court, including a suit for correction of his record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Congress does not at present maintain a statutory consent to suit in this court by a former employee, removable at will, who asserts a “liberty” interest only by reason of derogatory material in his government file created in connection with his removal, and who, as relief for that action, would be entitled only to elimination of that material, not reinstatement or back pay.”
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.