Rodriguez v. Peake’s Empirical Analysis
511 F.3d 1147 · 2008
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2023
6 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. § 1174 · 38 U.S.C. § 1310 · 38 U.S.C. § 1311 · 38 U.S.C. § 1318 · 38 U.S.C. § 5308 · 38 U.S.C. § 5309 · 38 U.S.C. § 5314 · 38 U.S.C. § 7292
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services · Sanders v. Nicholson · Prenzler v. Derwinski · Simmons v. Nicholson
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“retroactive effect” where, as here, the statute took effect before the lawsuit in question commenced. As the Federal Circuit articulated in Rodriguez , “[i]f, under th[e] [three-part] test, a rule or regulation appears to have a retroactive effect, then the rule or regulation cannot be applied to cases pending at the time of its promulgation.”
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.