Villela v. Department of the Air Force’s Empirical Analysis
727 F.2d 1574 · 1984
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Parker v. United States Postal Service (1987), Brook v. Corrado (1993)
27 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on Butz v. Glover Livestock Commission Co. · United States v. California · Ssih Equipment Sa v. United States International Trade Commission · Williams v. Department of Army · Whitlock, in Re
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“so harsh and unconscionably disproportionate to the offense that it amounts to an abuse of discretion.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“Selection of an appropriate penalty must ... involve a responsible balancing of the relevant factors in the individual case. The [OEA’s] role in this process is not to insist that the balance be struck precisely where the [OEA] would choose to strike it if the [OEA] were in the agency’s shoes in the first instance; such an approach would fail to accord proper deference to the agency’s primary discretion in managing its workforce. Rather, the [OEA’s] review of an agency-imposed penalty is essentially to assure that the agency did conscientiously consider the relevant factors and did strike a responsible balance within tolerable limits of reasonableness. Only if the [OEA] finds that the agency failed to weigh the relevant factors, or that the agency’s judgment clearly exceeded the limits of reasonableness, is it appropriate for the [OEA] then to specify how the agency’s decision should be corrected to bring the penalty within the parameters of reasonableness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.