Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 368 F.2d 609 - Fix v. United States

Fix v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

368 F.2d 609 · 1966

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
May 2015
most recently cited

4 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Fanning, Phillips & Molnar v. West (1998), Selman v. United States (1974)

4 federal appellate ·

200196619701980199020002010decided

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 5 U.S.C. § 911

Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Estate of J. William Bahen, Deceased, Kathleen Privett Bahen, Sole v. The United States · Burich v. United States · Anderson 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The unclear reference in the 1954 Act to "premium compensation * * * on an annual basis” does not necessarily mean that the agencies are forbidden to utilize such common administrative devices as quarterly reviews to help in computing the additional pay; those statutory words may simply mean that the starting point for calculating the percent of premium pay (e.g, 15%) shall be the annual wage. The administrators of a statute such as this have some leeway, and their implementing regulations should not be overturned unless clearly wrong. Here, in addition to the normal measure of discretion, there is the specific requirement in the Civil Service Commission’s regulation that the agencies should review premium pay determinations "at appropriate intervals” and discontinue payments or revise the rates where such action is necessary. 5 C.F.R. § 25.271 (a)(6) (1961). The Service’s adoption of the quarterly plan comes within that express authorization. [ 177 Ct. Cl. at 377 , 368 F.2d at 614 .]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Anderson

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.