Johnson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.2d 187 · 1980
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 10 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Pinar v. Dole (1984), 77 F. Supp. 2d 91 - Vanover v. Hantman (1999)
29 federal appellate · 10 district · 25 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. § 292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 5 U.S.C. § 2108 · 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments) · 5 U.S.C. § 7512 · 5 U.S.C. § 7513 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Not only is hearsay admissible, but,under. the appropriate, circumstances, it may constitute substantial evidence. At one time federal courts adhered to the so-called ‘residuum rule’: hearsay alone could not support an agency conclusion; some ‘residuum’, of evidence of a .type admissible in a jury trial also had to be .present. This rule no longer controls. , We have rejected a per se approach that .brands evidence as insubstantial solely . because it bears the hearsay label. Instead, we evaluate the weight each item of hearsay should receive according to the item’s truthfulness, reasonableness, and credibility.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“against an employee only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the nature of the benefit or status of which the individual is being deprived; the need for the government to act efficiently and expeditiously in terminating this type of benefit or status; and the extent to which the decisionmaking process would be aided by the presence of the procedural safeguard that the individual seeks.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.