King v. Alston’s Empirical Analysis
75 F.3d 657 · 1996
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Makky v. Chertoff (2008), Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1999)
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 7501 (Civil Service Due Process Amendments) · 5 U.S.C. § 7513 · 5 U.S.C. § 7532 · 5 U.S.C. § 7701 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Department of the Navy v. Egan · Connecticut v. Glidden · Brewer v. United States Postal Service
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) at least 30 days’ advance written notice ... stating the specific reasons for the proposed action; (2) a reasonable time, but not less than 7 days, to answer orally and in writing and to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of the answer; (3) be represented by an attorney or other representative; and (4) a written decision and the specific reasons therefor at the earliest practicable date.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A denial of a security clearance is not such an “adverse action,” and by its own force is not subject to Board review. An employee who is removed for “cause” under § 7513, when his required clearance is denied, is entitled to the several procedural protections specified in that statute [Title 5 Protections]. The Board then may determine whether such cause existed, whether in fact clearance was denied, and whether transfer to a nonsensitive position was feasible. Nothing in the Act, however, directs or empowers the Board to go further.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an employee, as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7501, has a property right in his continued employment.”
2 later decisions 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.