Schaefer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
633 F.2d 945 · 1980
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Hayes v. Department of the Navy (1984), Windsor v. The Tennessean (1983)
9 federal appellate · 2 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 5 U.S.C. § 4301 · 5 U.S.C. § 4304 · 5 U.S.C. § 7512
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc. · Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company Calumet Harbor Terminals Inc · Desist v. United States · Kalvar Corp. 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In deciding whether particular hearsay evidence amounts to substantial evidence, we apply the same standard applied to all other evidence properly before an administrative agency. In any particular case, hearsay evidence can therefore be “substantial evidence” if it has sufficient probative force such that a reasonable man might accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached by the agency. In seeing whether particular hearsay evidence is sufficiently probative, such hearsay evidence is to be evaluated relative to all the other evidence, including other hearsay, properly before the administrative agency. McKee v. United States, [ 500 F.2d 525, 528 (Ct. Cl. 1974) ]; Reil v. United States, 456 F.2d 777 (Ct. Cl. 1972). This need for such evaluation necessarily means there exists no hard and fast rule as to when hearsay constitutes substantial evidence. Rather, this determination must be made on a case by case basis. Jacobowitz v. United States, 424 F.2d 555, 562 (Ct. Cl. 1970). Schaefer v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 541, 554-55 , 633 F.2d 945 (1980) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).”
3 later decisions 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.