Dock v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
46 F.3d 1083 · 1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation v. States (2004), Paalan v. United States (2002)
3 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 10 U.S.C. § 802 · 10 U.S.C. § 845 · 10 U.S.C. § 857 · 10 U.S.C. § 871 · 10 U.S.C. § 875 · 37 U.S.C. § 101 (Armed Forces Enlisted Personnel Bonus Revision Act of 1974) · 37 U.S.C. § 204
Relies on Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond · Bell v. United States · Gorko v. Commanding Officer, Second Air Force, Shreveport, Louisiana · Dickenson 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, all rights, privileges, and property affected by an executed part of a court-martial sentence which has been set aside or disapproved, except an executed dismissal or discharge, shall be restored unless a new trial or rehearing is ordered and such executed part is included in a sentence imposed upon the new trial or rehearing.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The statute plainly requires that, with two exceptions, if a member’s court-martial sentence is set aside or disapproved, all rights, privileges, and property are to be restored to the member. The first exception is that a set-aside or disapproved sentence does not undo an already executed dismissal or discharge. The second exception, controlling here, is that if a rehearing is ordered, and the member is resentenced, then only that part of the executed first sentence that is not included in the second sentence shall be restored to the member.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the second sentence”) included all of the relevant components (to the pay issue) of the original sentence, except for total forfeiture of pay. Partial forfeiture, consisting of all pay above the E-l rate, however, was effected because the reduction in rank component was included in the second sentence. . As discussed supra at pp. 594-95, plaintiff was retained by the Air Force after the date his enlistment expired so that he could be tried again on the murder charge. According to paragraph 10317(c) of the DOD Pay Manual, this circumstance does not affect his right to pay for the periods addressed in this subsection. Said paragraph states: "[a]n enlisted member retained in the service for the purpose of trial by court-martial is not entitled to pay for any period after the expiration of the enlistment unless ... the member is retained in or restored to a full duty status.”
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.