Guy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
608 F.2d 867 · 1979
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Kreis v. Secretary of the Air Force (1989), Hary v. United States (1980)
6 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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
Relies on United States v. Testan · Bullock v. United States · Morris v. Gressette · Zanfardino v. United States · Sanders v. United States
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * perfect objectivity in the rating process cannot be expected or even hoped for. The process of evaluating officers by other officers is an inherently subjective process which neither the military boards nor this court will interfere with unless there is clear and convincing evidence of factors adversely affecting the ratings which had no business being in the rating process. * * * [Emphasis in original.]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Correction Board did not make a factual finding as to whether this OER was in fact missing from plaintiff’s records before the selection boards. Plaintiff discovered that the OER was missing from his records in the fall of 1972. In response to an inquiry the Records Maintenance Branch made the following statement: 1. The AFHQ Form 43 in question was initialed on 21 November 1972 when an OER for the period of 14 Aug. 68 — 15 May 69 was discovered to be missing from Major Guy’s record by the file clerk. # * * * * . A determination cannot be made if the above mentioned OER had ever been received for file. It is a fact that it was not in file during the Microfilming of records during the summer of 1972 when Major Guy’s alfa record group was filmed. [Emphasis added by Court of Claims.] There is no evidence showing that the OER was ever in plaintiff’s records ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is ... settled that responsibility for determining who is fit or unfit to serve in the armed services is not a judicial province, and that courts cannot substitute their judgment for [the Board] when reasonable minds might reach differing conclusions on the same evidence. Thus, although judicial review of military service determinations with monetary consequences is available, the review jurisdiction has been summarized: ‘Review of the administrative decision is limited to determining whether the ... action was arbitrary, capricious, ... or unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law, regulation, or mandatory published procedure of a substantive nature by which [plaintiff] has been seriously prejudiced.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kosnik v. Peters
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.