In re Levenson’s Empirical Analysis
560 F.3d 1145 · 2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 7 · 5 U.S.C. § 8901 (Federal Employees Benefits Improvement Act of 1986) · 5 U.S.C. § 8905 · 5 U.S.C. § 8951
Relies on City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia · Romer Governor of Colorado v. Evans · Lawrence v. Texas
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If [Levenson's husband] were female, or if Levenson himself were female, Levenson would be able to add [his husband] as a beneficiary. Thus, the denial of benefits at issue here was sex-based and can be understood as a violation of the ... prohibition of sex discrimination.”); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 , 996 (N.D.Cal.2010) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Latta v. Otter
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.