Soto-Lopez v. New York City Civil Service Commission’s Empirical Analysis
755 F.2d 266 · 1985
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez (1986), Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor (1985)
9 federal appellate · 3 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Shapiro v. Thompson · Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney · Dunn v. Blumstein · Graham v. Richardson · Hicks v. Miranda
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Defendants New York City Civil Service Commission, New York City Department of Personnel, Mark Lebow, and Juan Ortiz (“City, defendants” [sic]) shall award plaintiffs veterans credits pursuant to section 85 of the Civil Service Law if plaintiffs meet the requirements of section 85 Law [sic ] other than the requirement that they were “a resident of [the State of New York] at the time of entrance into the armed forces; 2. If plaintiff Soto-Lopez invokes his entitlement to veterans credits on the eligible list from examination # 5003 for the position of housing caretaker or any other eligible list on an examination taken after the filing of the Complaint on February 22,1983, and if with these additional credits plaintiff Soto-Lopez would have been appointed or promoted on these eligibility lists, City Defendants shall appoint or promote plaintiff Soto-Lopez with back seniority as of the date that he would have been appointed or promoted with veterans credits, provided he is otherwise qualified for the position; 3.If plaintiff Baez-Hernandez invokes his entitlement to veterans credits on the eligibility list from examination # 8144 for the position of O.C. Research Assistant or on the eligibility list from examination #0153 for Assistant Accountant, or on any other examination taken after the filing of the Complaint on February 22,1983, and if with these additional credits plaintiff Baez-Hernandez would have been appointed or promoted on these eligible lists, City Defendants s”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where a statute is defective because of underinclusion there exist two remedial alternatives: a court may either declare it a nullity and order that its benefits not extend to the class that the legislature intended to benefit, or it may extend the coverage of the statute to include those who are aggrieved by exclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Amog v. Keatley“whether either plaintiff should receive immediate appointment, if so to what position, and whether awards of backpay or retroactive seniority are appropriate, as well as issues relating to defendants' defenses of immunity,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.