Wimmer v. Lehman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[o]nce the Superintendent of the USNA determines that a midshipman should be discharged for unsatisfactory conduct, Section 6962 of Title 10 of the United States Code sets forth the procedures that must then be followed in order to effect such a discharge. The Superintendent is required to ‘submit to the Secretary of the Navy in writing a full report of the facts.’ 10 U.S.C. § 6962 (a). The midshipman upon whom the report is made is then to ‘be given an opportunity to examine the report and submit a written statement thereon.’ 10 U.S.C. § 6962 (b). At that point, the decision is to be made by the Secretary of the Navy under the following statutory guidelines: ‘If the Secretary believes, on the basis of the report and statement, that the determination of the Superintendent ... is reasonable and well founded, he may discharge .the midshipman from the Naval Academy and from the naval service.’ 10 U.S.C. § 6962 (b).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Donnell J. Green v. John F. Lehman, Jr., Secretary of the Navy, and William P. Lawrence, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy, Superintendent · 212 F. Supp. 2d 5 - Lebrun v. England

2. “[D]ifficult choices are imposed upon defendants and litigants in many situations. See, e.g., McGawtha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 213-20 , 91 S.Ct. 1454,1470-74 , 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), vacated on other grounds, 408 U.S. 941 , 92 S.Ct. 2873 , 33 L.Ed.2d 765 ; United States v. White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1286-87 (5 Cir., 1979); Arthurs v. Stem, 560 F.2d 477 (1 Cir., 1977). Even if the overhanging threat of the criminal trial created some hard choices for [the cadet] at the hearing, the [Academy’s] strong interest in concluding its proceedings preclude delay due to [the cadet’s] state case. Provided it respected his Fifth Amendment rights, which it more than fully did, both by drawing no inferences, and by permitting the limited presence of counsel, Gabrilowitz v. Newman, 582 F.2d 100 (1 Cir., 1978), it owed him no duty to subordinate its general interests.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 985 F. Supp. 292 - Application of Crowley v. United States Merchant Marine Academy

3. “[Fjirst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 150 N.C. App. 86 - In Re Roberts