Easter v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
575 F.3d 1332 · 2009
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Gonzales-McCaulley Investment Group, Inc. v. United States (2011), 114 Fed. Cl. 760 - Huntington Promotional & Supply, LLC v. United States (2014)
1 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 254
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Auer v. Robbins · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services · Steiner v. Mitchell
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Gov’t App’x at 1-112”); and the Appendix to Plaintiff’s January 12, 2015 Response ("PL App’x at 1-166”). A chronology is also set out in the Court Appendix: Chronology Of Factual Events, attached hereto. 2 . Each of the four TSRs required service to begin in December 2009, but CEP could defer commencement of service by paying a non-refundable annual reservation fee equal to one month's charge for transmission service. Compl. ¶ 19. From December 2009 to December 2011, CEP deferred commencement of service under all four TSRs. Compl. V 20. 3 . From December 2011 to December 2012, CEP continued to defer commencement of service, pursuant Tables 1A and ID. Compl. ¶ 23. 4 . RCFC 12(d) provides: If, on a motion under RCFC 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under RCFC 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all material that is pertinent to the motion. RCFC 12(d). "The question whether a party has had a 'reasonable opportunity' to present pertinent summary judgment materials when a trial court converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment necessarily turns on the way in which the particular case under consideration has unfolded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o the extent that the appellants' argument is simply a challenge to the correctness of this court’s decisions in Bobo and Adams [II], we reject it. With respect to the appellants’ argument that Supreme Court or other Federal Circuit decisions require us to overturn the decisions in Bobo and Adams [II], we disagree. To begin with, several of the decisions on which the appellants rely predate Adams [I] and thus do not qualify as subsequent authority that would call Adams [I] into question. In any event, even without regard to the issue of timing, we do not find in those authorities any persuasive ground for reconsidering Bobo and Adams [II],”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If, on a motion under RCFC 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under RCFC 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all material that is pertinent to the motion.”
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.