Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 628 F.2d 102 - Pendleton v. Rumsfeld

Pendleton v. Rumsfeld’s Empirical Analysis

628 F.2d 102 · 1980

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States of America, v. Microsoft Corporation, (2001), Parker v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company B & O (1981)

12 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

21019801990200020102020decided

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. § 293 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Patterson v. United States · United States v. Yellow Cab 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “. . . the problem before us for resolution really has the duties of an EEO Counselor as its most significant element. The decision to remove any employee must be made primarily in light of that employee’s duties. A question of retaliation is not raised by a removal for conduct inconsistent with those duties, unless its use as a mere pretext is clear.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “About noon ..., a large group crowded into Colonel Preston’s office, including media and persons who would normally have been working. They spilled over into the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria. The meeting was not a question and answer session between press and spokespersons, but a reading of numerous grievances of food service workers. There was no violence, but “the crowd was abnormally vocal.” Neither Colonel Preston nor the General had given permission for use of her office in this fashion. Thus it was a demonstration rather than a press conference.”
    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.