Moon v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
854 F.2d 147 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2015
16 federal appellate ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 28 U.S.C. § 536 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 5 U.S.C. § 1205 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Carlson v. Green · Bush v. Lucas · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · California Department of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of California
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“subject to narrow exceptions, a federal employee cannot file a suit for damages against his supervisor for an unconstitutional adverse personnel action when Congress has provided an adequate administrative remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“applicable administrative remedy is through the Merit Systems Protection Board, to which Congress granted broad jurisdiction to resolve all contested federal personnel matters”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bagola v. Kindt“must be left to his administrative remedies as others in this circuit have been before him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robbins v. Bentsen
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.