Barnhart v. Devine’s Empirical Analysis
771 F.2d 1515 · 1985
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh (1988), Hubbard v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986)
34 federal appellate · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 292 · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 1201 (Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989) · 5 U.S.C. § 1205 · 5 U.S.C. § 1206 · 5 U.S.C. § 1209 · 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002)
Relies on Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · Carducci v. Regan · Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission · Borrell v. United States International Communications Agency · Cartier v. Secretary of State
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any law ... directly concerning the merit system principles....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 2302(a)(1) of Title 5 of the U.S. Code states that for the purpose of Title 5, “prohibited personnel practice” means any action described in section 2302(b). 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (a)(1). Section 2302(b)(ll) states that: [a]ny employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action shall not, with respect to such authority ... take or fail to take any other personnel action if the taking or failure to take such action violates any law, rule, or regulation implementing, or directly concerning the merit system principles contained in section 2301 of this title. 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(ll). The definition of “prohibited personnel practice” contained in section 2302(b)(ll), therefore, requires the existence of five elements: 1) the defendant must have the authority to take, recommend, or approve an action, 2) the defendant must have taken or failed to have taken such action, 3) the action or inaction must be a “personnel action,” 4) the law, rule, or regulation that the action or inaction allegedly violates must implement or directly concern a merit system principle, and 5) the action or inaction in fact must violate such law, rule, or regulation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“seek a writ of mandamus to compel the OSC to investigate [that] complaint 6 and, in addition, may seek limited judicial review of the OSC’s determination that the complaint does not merit the Board’s consideration. In the latter instance, judicial review is limited to determining whether the Special Counsel’s investigation of the complaint constituted an adequate discharge of the Office’s responsibilities under the CSRA. See Carducci, supra, 714 F.2d at 175 (citing Cutts, supra, 692 F.2d at 140). While limited, that review nonetheless enables the court to determine whether the Office of Special Counsel had adequate information upon which to base its determination.”
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.