645 F. Supp. 97 - Smith v. Horner’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 7702 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703 · 5 U.S.C. § 8347
Relies on Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · University of Tennessee v. Elliott · Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management · Busic v. United States · Chandler v. Roudebush
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that this may well place plaintiff in the apparently anomalous position of having a theoretical potential remedy with no potential relief (i.e., plaintiff seeks disability benefits only, and it appears that the Court would be precluded by the prior proceedings and by statute from awarding plaintiff the relief he seeks if plaintiff were to prevail on his reprisal claim). [ 645 F.Supp. at 100 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Horner“That anomaly, however, is not the fault of the Court, the defendant, or the controlling statutes and precedent. Rather, it is the consequence of a series of tactical judgments exercised by plaintiff and/or his counsel in the course of this exceptionally protracted litigation, with the portion of this Court being but a small part thereof. [Id. ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Horner
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.