Sharp v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.3d 1234 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1448 · 10 U.S.C. § 1450 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 38 U.S.C. § 101 (Agent Orange Act of 1991) · 38 U.S.C. § 1310 · 38 U.S.C. § 1311
Relies on Duncan v. Walker · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker · Garcia v. United States · United States v. Gonzales · United States v. Enmons
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case of an individual who is eligible for dependency and indemnity compensation under this section by reason of section 103(d)(2)(B) of this title who is also eligible for benefits under another provision of law by reason of such individual’s status as the surviving spouse of a veteran, then, notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than section 5304(b) of this title), no reduction in benefits under such other provision of law shall be made by reason of such individual's eligibility for benefits under this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). Consequently, there is no need to expressly include a provision prohibiting a taxpayer from deducting the Mixture Credit because it is not an expense incurred by the taxpayer. B. Legislative History The plain meaning of the statute is clear-the Mixture Credit is a credit, not a payment, which must first be used to decrease a taxpayer's gasoline excise-tax liability before receiving any payment under § 6427(e). To overcome the plain meaning of the statute, Sunoco must show that the legislative history”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“embodies an ' extraordinary showing of contrary intentions.' " Sharp v. United States , 580 F.3d 1234 , 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Glaxo Operations UK Ltd. v. Quigg , 894 F.2d 392 , 396 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (looking at legislative history "only to determine whether a clear intent contrary to the plain meaning exists”
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.