Able v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 654 · 10 U.S.C. § 801 (Military Justice Act of 1968) · 10 U.S.C. § 893 · 10 U.S.C. § 920 · 10 U.S.C. § 934 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Relies on Bolling v. Sharpe · Robinson v. State of California · Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley · Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota · Cohen v. 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) |T|he member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in [the] regulations, that the member has demonstrated that— (A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior; (B) such, conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur; (C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation; (D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and (E) the member does not have a propensity to engage in homosexual acts; [or] (3) [T]he member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“S.Rep. 112 at 278. See also id. at 281. 120 Gov't Br. at 37 (emphasis added); see also id. at 3 (same). General Powell actually stated not that the service of persons likely to engage in homosexual acts would be detrimental to unit cohesion, but rather that, 121 the presence of open homosexuality would have an unacceptable detrimental and disruptive impact on the cohesion, morale, and esprit of the armed forces. 122 S.Rep. No. 112 at 278 (emphasis added). 123 Repeating the mischaracterization, the Administration recites again, later, that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Thomasson v. Perry“[I]f indeed there are homosexuals who wish to peek at naked bodies, they might do so quite as readily when their orientation is a secret as when it is open. The only difference will be that heterosexuals will not know which of their servicemates are homosexuals, and heterosexuals will have reason to have a generalized suspicion of everyone in the showers, hardly a circumstance likely to increase “cohesion.” To suggest to heterosexuals that the secrecy policy will “accommodate” their privacy interests is to attempt to mislead them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Philips v. Perry
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.