Orloff v. Cleland’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 372 · 1983
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Franks v. Nimmo (1986), Brewster v. Board of Education of the Lynwood Unified School District (1998)
39 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 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 38 U.S.C. § 4104 · 38 U.S.C. § 4110 · 38 U.S.C. § 4114 (Veteran Skills to Jobs Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 1302 · 5 U.S.C. § 2108 · 5 U.S.C. § 3301 (Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998) · 5 U.S.C. § 5101 · 5 U.S.C. § 7504
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Perry v. Sindermann · Udall v. Tallman
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'rules or understandings' from independent sources, such as statutes, regulations, and ordinances, or express or implied contracts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there remain factual disputes concerning whether the VA accorded Orloff any hearing at all. We note the initial notice of termination stated specifically that he had no appeal within the VA. It is unclear, even after the VA extended the termination date, whether the VA actually reviewed the merits of the termination decision or merely assured itself that its own procedural requirements, if any, had been followed. There is no indication in the record that Orloff was invited to submit evidence, even in the form of affidavits, on his behalf or to examine the evidence against himself, [citation omitted] Moreover, although due process does not always require a full adversary hearing [citation omitted] it is unclear without first determining the nature of Orloff’s property or liberty interest whether such a hearing would be warranted in these circumstances, or to what extent various procedural safeguards, e.g., the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, should be sacrificed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen the government dismisses an individual for reasons that might seriously damage his standing in the community, he may be entitled to notice and a hearing. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573 n. 12, 92 S.Ct. at 2707 n. 12. The accusations, however, must be publicized. See Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank, 650 F.2d 1093, 1101 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 , 102 S.Ct. 1449 , 71 L.Ed.2d 662 (1982). Moreover, the accuracy of the charges must be contested. Vanelli v. Reynolds School District No. 7, 667 F.2d 773, 777 (9th Cir.1982).”
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.