Simon v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1988
4 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 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Galliher v. Cadwell · United States v. Babcock · Williamsport Wire Rope Co. v. United States · United States v. Wickersham · Norris 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant’s position is based entirely upon an inference which it seeks to draw-from the absence in the Act of 1883 of an express provision that the denial of a right under a regulation, duly made pursuant to that Act, shall entitle the employee concerned to sue in this court. We think it is obvious that such an express provision was not necessary since Congress knew, in 1883, that it had already expressly given this court jurisdiction to hear, determine, and enter judgments upon such claims. * * * *■-***** The statute (28 U.S.C. 1491) outlining the general jurisdiction of this court and the Civil Service Act of January 16, 1883, supra, are “in pari ma-teria” and should be construed together * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Plaintiff’s claim is for his salary only during the three months and five days between the dates of his discharge and reinstatement. It seems to us that plaintiff promptly took the proper steps to establish his right to his position, which steps brought about his reinstatement. The amount of plaintiff’s claim for salary was fixed as of the date of his reinstatement and any subsequent delay in bringing this action could not impose any additional burden upon the Government. In these circumstances the defense of laches is not applicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * [W]e think the plaintiff is entitled to recover the salary in question if the facts show, as they clearly do in this case, that during the period involved he was illegally deprived of the position he had held and the salary thereof under the terms and conditions of the Act of 1883 [ 22 Stat. 403 ; 5 U.S.C. § 633 ] and the regulations made and promulgated thereunder. [Emphasis supplied.] [Id. at 194.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.