Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 738 F.2d 55 - Agromayor v. Colberg

Agromayor v. Colberg’s Empirical Analysis

738 F.2d 55 · 1984

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Romero-Barcelo v. Hernandez-Agosto (1996), Rowland v. Mad River Local School District, Montgomery County, Ohio (1985)

21 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

19019841990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers

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

  1. “`meaningful' input into the legislative process ... the employment decision should be immunized.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes [of Congress],”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A Member of Congress has a right to expect that every person on his or her staff will give total loyalty to the political positions of the Member, total confidentiality, and total support. This may, on occasion, lead a Member to employ a particular person on a racial, ethnic, religious, or gender basis thought to be acceptable to the constituency represented, even though in other branches of Government — or in the private sector— such selection factors might be prohibited____ At this level of Government — staff assistants of Members — long-accepted concepts of separation of powers dictate, for me, that until Congress legislates otherwise as to employment standards for its own staff, judicial power in this area is circumscribed. Davis v. Passman, ante, 442 U.S. at 249-50 , 99 S.Ct. at 2279 (Burger, C.J., dissenting).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.