Small v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
158 F.3d 576 · 1998
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably Roth v. United States (2004), Small v. United States (1999)
12 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 616 · 10 U.S.C. § 617
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Murphy v. United States · Sargisson v. United States · Coal Company v. United States · Harbert/Lummus Agrifuels Projects 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress has not spoken to the issue of whether the selection board must conduct itself as a collective body. The statutory provisions do not contain any specific methodology that the selection board must use in carrying out its deliberative process. In addition, the parties direct us to nothing in the legislative history that would reveal Congress’ intent with regard to these issues and we have found no guidance in our review of the legislative history. Given the facts before us, we also hold that the Air Force’s interpretation of the statute is a permissible one. The statute does not require that a majority determination be based on a knowing review and conscientious consideration of each officer’s record. Nothing in the plain language of the statute requires first-hand knowledge on the part of the deliberators of an officer’s record. All that is required is a numerical showing that more than half of the board members approved or disapproved of the matter before them.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 616. Recommendations for promotion by selection boards * H? * if* # * (c) A selection board ... may not recommend an officer for promotion unless— (1) the officer receives the recommendation of a majority of the members of the board; and (2) a majority of the members of the board finds that the officer is fully qualified for promotion.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 617, in turn, provides as follows: § 617. Reports of selection boards (a) Each selection board ... shall submit to the Secretary of the military department concerned a written report, signed by each member of the board, containing a list of the names of the officers it recommends for promotion and certifying (1) that the board has carefully considered the record of each officer whose name was furnished to it under section 615 of this title, and (2) that, in the opinion of the majority of the members of the board, the officers recommended for promotion by the board are best qualified for promotion to meet the needs of the armed force concerned (as noted in the guidelines or information furnished to the board under section 615(b) of this title) among those officers whose names were furnished to the selection board.”
4 later decisions 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.