Steenson v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 101 (Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007) · 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 3911 · 10 U.S.C. § 687 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · McKart v. United States · Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Aragon · Alvado v. General Motors Corp.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Construing the readjustment pay statute with § 1163(d) and keeping in mind the purpose of this legislation, we are satisfied that Congress never intended that a reserve officer who had already been involuntarily released and received readjustment pay could then “tack on” active duty for training time and become qualified for the “sanctuary” afforded by § 1163(d). Plaintiffs, as career officers, have already had the benefits of readjustment pay for having been separated through no fault of their own prior to eighteen years of active duty. In our view, they have been accorded the only benefits Congress intended by this legislation.”
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.