Hernandez v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
671 F.2d 402 · 1982
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation (1988), Erff v. MarkHon Industries, Inc. (1986)
28 federal appellate · 10 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 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974) · 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments)
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Perry v. Sindermann · Arnett v. Kennedy · Donovan v. Dewey · Beller v. Middendorf
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment ... but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Privacy Act states in pertinent part: No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written approval of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure would be— (3) for a routine use ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(g)(1) Civfi Remedies—Whenever any agency (D) fails to comply with any other provision of this section, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse affect on an individual, the individual may bring a civil action against the agency, and the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction in the matters under the provisions of this subsection. (4) In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection (g)(1)(C) or (D) of this section in which the court determines that the agency acted in a manner which was intentional or mllful, the United States shall be hable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of— (A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no ease shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000; and (B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.