McAuliffe v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
966 F.2d 979 · 1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2023
8 federal appellate · 7 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
Relies on Bush v. Lucas · United States v. Fausto · Cuffle v. Avenenti · Stephens v. Department of Health & Human Services · Young v. United States
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress deliberately exempted NAFI employees from federal civil service rules to enable the armed services to carry out the mission of non-appropriated fund organizations with the maximum possible personnel flexibility. Requiring judicial review of adverse employment decisions in addition to the elaborate procedural protections already mandated by [Department of Defense Regulations] substantially thwarts the goal of maintaining flexibility ...., to permit judicial review of NAFI personnel decisions under the APA would perversely allow them more safeguards than Congress granted more-protected classes of ordinary federal civil servants under the CSRA.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mann v. Haigh · Rita Zimbelman
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.