Thompson v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis
548 F.2d 1122 · 1976
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1992
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 403 (§ 203 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 409 (§ 209 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 210 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 211 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 415 (§ 215 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 418 (§ 218 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Weinberger v. Salfi · Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc. · Lewis v. Martin · Harper v. Flemming · Angell v. Flemming
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Amounts paid specifically — either as advances or reimbursements — for traveling or other bona fide ordinary and necessary expenses incurred or reasonably expected to be incurred in the business of the employer are not wages. Traveling and other reimbursed expenses must be identified either by making a separate payment or by specifically indicating the separate amounts where both wages and expense allowances are combined in a single payment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The case before us is not one in which the reimbursed expenses were required by an employer, even as a practical necessity; the case here is one in which the expenses now claimed to be reimbursable were not required by the employer, and for which the plaintiff did not even seek reimbursement from the City in addition to his salary, although a specific provision of the City Charter would have allowed him so to do. In these circumstances, we find no reason to apply, and we do not, those traveling salesmen cases which would exclude the expenses. We do not express an opinion as to which group of the traveling salesmen cases is correct. That matter is better left for another day.””
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.