Shirey v. Devine’s Empirical Analysis
670 F.2d 1188 · 1982
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Thompson v. Sawyer (1982), Barth v. Gelb (1993)
24 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 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 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“emphasize[d] the narrow effect of this decision. The legal position of disabled employees like Mr. Shirey has changed significantly since January 1978— In March 1979 Executive Order 12125 gave handicapped excepted service employees relief basically identical to that Mr. Shi-rey seeks before this court. Finally, Mr. Shirey was the only handicapped excepted service employee at Godard to lose his job in the January 1978 reduction-in-force. In sum, Mr. Shirey’s case seems to have arisen in the course of discovering unanticipated flaws in an otherwise praise-worthy government program for employing severely handicapped individuals, and we are confident that the system now in place will produce no more instances of discrimination as egregious as this one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allen v. Heckler“The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e~16], including the application of sections 706(f) through 706(k) [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f) through (k) ], shall be available, with respect to any complaint under section 791 of this title, to any employee or applicant for employment aggrieved by the final disposition of such complaint, or by the failure to take final action on such complaint.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The unlawful discrimination in this case occurred when Mr. Shirey was kept in the excepted service long after the reason for keeping him in a separate employment category had expired. He was working alongside and performing the same tasks as competitive service employees, and no expensive modification of his employment conditions was required. His need for the benefits of competitive service status was certainly no less than that of his co-workers.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Realbuto v. Howe
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.