Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 112 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Fausto.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Fausto Anchor | green | “an integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review, designed to balance the legitimate interests of the various categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and efficient administration.” | 30 |
| 2 | United States v. Fausto | green | “integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review” | 18 |
| 3 | United States v. Fausto | green | “established a comprehensive system for reviewing personnel action taken against federal employees.” | 18 |
| 4 | Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management | green | “comprehensively overhauled the civil service system.” | 15 |
| 5 | Bush v. Lucas | green | “elaborate remedial system that has been constructed step by step, with careful attention to conflicting policy considerations,” | 11 |
| 6 | Carolyn Weaver v. United States Information Agency | green | “under the csra, exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.” | 10 |
| 7 | Jeffrey A. Saul v. United States of America Ray Larsen Colleen St. Louis John Doe St. Louis | green | “prohibited personnel practices” | 8 |
| 8 | David Orsay v. United States Department Of Justice | green | “if the conduct that appellants challenge in this action falls within the scope of the csra's 'prohibited personnel practices,' then the csra's administrative procedures are appellants' only remedy.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.