National Treasury Employees Union v. United States Merit Sytems Protection Board’s Empirical Analysis
743 F.2d 895 · 1984
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1986), CF Industries, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1991)
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 171 · 28 U.S.C. § 2342 · 5 U.S.C. § 1103 · 5 U.S.C. § 1205 · 5 U.S.C. § 1206 · 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002)
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the complainant must allege injury in fact; (2) the complainant must assert that arbitrary or capricious agency action injured an interest arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question; and (3) there must be no “clear and convincing” indication of a legislative intent to withhold judicial review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Placing a seasonal employee in a nonduty, nonpay status in accordance with conditions established at the time of employment is not an adverse action `furlough' under 5 U.S.C. § 7511 (a)(5) and does not give rise to the adverse action procedures of 5 U.S.C. § 7513 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally [§ 1204(f)(1)(B)] provides that the [Board] has the “sole discretion” to grant review of OPM rules and regulations when the moving party is an “interested person.” Unless the [Board] chooses to grant review, such interested parties will have to seek initial judicial review of OPM rules and regulations in the district court under regular [Administrative Procedure Act] procedures. The [Board] will, therefore, theoretically be able to control whether the district courts or the courts of appeals will review challenges to the facial invalidity of OPM rules and regulations through its own unreviewable power to grant or deny administrative review.”
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.