Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 804 F.2d 654 - Warren v. Department of Army

Warren v. Department of Army’s Empirical Analysis

804 F.2d 654 · 1986

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably 55 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1675, 57 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,952 Julio M. Cruz v. Department of the Navy (1991), Marano v. Department of Justice (1993)

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

20019861990200020102020decided

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. § 2302 · 5 U.S.C. § 4302 · 5 U.S.C. § 4303 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703

Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Hayes v. Department of the Navy · Frazier v. Merit Systems Protection Board · Hagmeyer v. Department of Treasury

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

  1. “in the context of reprisal issues, the inquiry covers not only whether a retaliatory motive exists, but also whether there are independent grounds for initiating an action against an employee.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The agency action must be sustained unless it is found to be: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedure required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in effect, that an imaginary supervisor who knew nothing of the [protected activity] would have been led by the objective facts to find [the employee's misconduct warranted removal].”
    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.