Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 747 F.2d 29 - Chilcott v. Orr

Chilcott v. Orr’s Empirical Analysis

747 F.2d 29 · 1984

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Gately v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1993), Guerra v. Scruggs (1991)

11 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

1801984199020002010decided

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 10 U.S.C. § 1169 · 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments)

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Arnett v. Kennedy · Dobbert v. Florida · Sampson v. Murray · Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham

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

  1. “In view of the strong judicial policy against interfering with the internal affairs of the armed forces, we will apply the more stringent test of Sampson to applications for preliminary injunctions by military personnel.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the prospect of a general discharge under honorable conditions is not an injury of sufficient magnitude to warrant an injunction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “military discharge proceedings should be enjoined only in exceptional circumstances.”
    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.