Stewart v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
673 F.2d 486 · 1982
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Harmon v. Thornburgh (1989), Orzel v. City of Wauwatosa Fire Department (1983)
28 federal appellate · 13 district · 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 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 5 U.S.C. § 1105 · 5 U.S.C. § 3307 · 5 U.S.C. § 3308 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia · Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“means-- 20 (D) an employee-- 21 (i) of the Bureau of Prisons ...; 22 whose duties in connection with individuals in detention ... require frequent direct contact with these individuals in their detention and are sufficiently rigorous that employment opportunities should be limited to young and physically vigorous individuals, as determined by the head of the employing agency.... 23 Sec. 8401(17)(D)(i) (emphases added). The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs issued a report on the first version of its bill, explaining: 24 Paragraph (18) defines”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this case, applying the ADEA to the establishment of maximum entry ages for law enforcement officers would require us to adopt a strained reading of section 3307(d) and to ignore Congress’ clear intent to employ maximum entry ages as a means towards securing a “young and vigorous” work force of law enforcement officers. We therefore agree with the district court that section 3307(d) is an exception to the ADEA. 673 F.2d at 492 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The head of any agency may determine and fix the minimum and maximum limits of age within which an original appointment may be made to a position as a law enforcement officer or firefighter, as defined by section 8331(20) and (21), respectively, of this title.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.