Willenbring v. Neurauter’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2020
1 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. § 101 (Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007) · 10 U.S.C. § 10102 · 10 U.S.C. § 10209 · 10 U.S.C. § 12304 · 10 U.S.C. § 802 · 10 U.S.C. § 815 · 10 U.S.C. § 825 · 10 U.S.C. § 832
Relies on Furman v. Georgia · Duren v. Missouri · Orloff v. Willoughby · Chappell v. Wallace · Coker v. Georgia
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Around February or early March 1992, [Willenbring] received a civilian job offer and requested an exception to policy in the separation regulation, AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3, for a civilian job offer. That request was denied. [Wil-lenbring] on 9 Mar 92 submitted a [Department of the Army] Form 4187 (Personnel Action) requesting reconsideration of his request for release from active duty and stated: “I am willing to serve my remaining time in service in the Active Reserves.” His ETS at the time under his then current enlistment was September 1994-His battalion-level commander recommended approval of that request on 9 Mar 92 , and Department of the Army Separations and Appeals Branch on 10 Mar 92 approved that request with a separation date of 10 Mar 92 . On 13 Mar 92 , [Willenbr-ing] enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve for a term of 1 year under a “Transition Enlistment.” He enlisted for specific assignment to Co D, 2d Bn Tng, Spt Bde, Jones Point, USARC, Alexandria, VA, requesting reserve component assignment orders for assignment to that unit. Those orders were issued that day, 13 Mar 92 , assigning him effective 1 Apr 92 to that unit. [Wil-lenbring] in his Request for Component Assignment Orders ... requested to continue his SGLI coverage. In his enlistment contract of 13 Mar 92 , [Wil-lenbring] acknowledged and initialed his understanding that “this enlistment will require that I commence training with a troop program unit immediately. I will be required to maintain satisfacto”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"if there was a change in status between regular and reserve service, unaccompanied by a complete termination of military status, then the reservist would be subject to court-martial jurisdiction for all prior-service offenses to the same extent as a regular whose military status had changes in form without a complete termination of military status.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reaction to the strong opposition of the reserve community to the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over reservists, the House deleted language from the Administration’s proposed bill in Article 3(a) that would have permitted an involuntary recall to active duty of a reservist charged with offenses during a prior period of duty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morgan v. Mahoney
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.