Gaballah v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
629 F.2d 1191 · 1980
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Klein v. Trustees of Indiana University (1985), Sims v. Heckler (1984)
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Paul v. Davis · 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Regarding the five non-promotions, the evidence in the record shows that Gaballah had no protected right to be promoted under the Downey Merit Promotion Program. No [sic] does Gaballah have a property interest in any particular form of consideration for promotion. For if a non-tenured college teacher could assert no property interest in the decision whether to rehire him for a position he already held, Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577-78 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 2710 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), Gaballah has no such interest in the filling of positions he has never held. * * *"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“would indicate that no decision between candidates was made at all. Thus, although this explanation of the non-selections amounts to a violation of another rule, it remains a non-discriminatory reason under the McDonnell Douglas analysis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Warrick v. Pierce“is merely a model for ordering and evaluating evidence concerning employment discrimination.”
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.