McAdams v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
64 F.3d 1137 · 1995
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Cheryl Hooven-Lewis v. Louis Caldera (2001), Butler v. West (1999)
27 federal appellate · 13 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 1201 (Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989) · 5 U.S.C. § 7701 · 5 U.S.C. § 7702
Relies on Brown v. General Services Administration · Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno · Katz v. Dole · Crawford v. Runyon · Washington v. Garrett
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hichever is filed first (the mixed case complaint or the [mixed case] appeal) shall be considered an election to proceed in that forum.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The disposition of this appeal depends upon when our jurisdiction under [5 U.S.C.] § 7703(b)(1) is precluded by § 7703(b)(2) and § 7702.... Section 7702(a)(1) requires that the MSPB “decide both the issue of discrimination and the appealable action” within 120 days.... Once a case becomes judicially reviewable, § 7702 and § 7703(b)(2) specify that an action be filed under the appropriate discrimination statute.... ... [T]he judicially reviewable action by the MSPB which makes an appeal a “case of discrimination” under § 7703(b)(2) that can be filed in district court is that the MSPB has decided “both the issue of discrimination and the appealable action.... ” § 7702(a)(1). When an appeal has been taken to the MSPB, until the discrimination issue and the appealable action have been decided on the merits by the MSPB, an appellant is granted no rights to a trial de novo in a civil action under § 7702 or § 7703. Yet, threshold issues such as the MSPB’s own jurisdiction arise continually on appeal to this court, and we have taken jurisdiction over these cases.... The language of § 7703(b)(1) ... strongly suggests that until the merits of a “mixed” discrimination case are reached by the MSPB, procedural or threshold matters, not related to the merits of a discrimination claim before the MSPB, may properly be appealed to this court.... [0]ur exercise of jurisdiction over MSPB decisions until issues touching the merits of a discrimination claim are appealed comports with the intent o”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kloeckner v. Solis“(A) has been affected by an action which the employee or applicant may appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and (B) alleges that a basis for the action was discrimination prohibited by— (i) section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000e-16), (ii) section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)), (iii) section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), (iv) sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 631, 633a), or (v) any rule, regulation, or policy directive prescribed under any provision of law described in clauses (i) through (iv) of this subparagraph,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coffman v. Glickman
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.