Khalsa v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis
759 F.2d 1411 · 1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 502
Relies on William Marbury v. James Madison · Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division · Chappell v. Wallace · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Kentucky v. Indiana
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the [district court's] Goldman opinion is clearly based on a completely unwarranted interpretation of Rostker's rationale. Also, the approach has no firm basis in logic, in principles of administrative law, or in jurisprudence regarding reviewability of military decisions”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Khalsa v. Weinberger“the potential injury to plaintiff if review is refused is not substantial. Plaintiff will lose the opportunity to enlist in the Army, but will be deprived of no constitutionally cognizable liberty or property interest in the Army's refusal to enlist him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Khalsa v. Weinberger“in scope because they effectively prevent certain civilians from enlisting. We need not decide whether the supposed dichotomy between”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Khalsa v. Weinberger
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.