Acker v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
620 F.2d 802 · 1980
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2015
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.
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 905 · 5 U.S.C. § 5921
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · Upper Pecos Ass'n v. Peterson · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Reardon v. Meacham
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"• 4 * [T]he construction of a statute by an agency charged with its administration is given deference and entitled to great weight. Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965); Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945); Crawford v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 128, 142-43 , 376 F.2d 266, 274 (1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1041 (1968). Moreover, the passage of time increases the assumption that Congress is aware of the agency interpretation of a statute and concurs in it, since no subsequent legislation has altered it. Benton v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 263 , 488 F.2d 1017 (1973); Alabama v. United States, 198 Ct. Cl. 683 , 461 F.2d 1324 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1023 (1972). * * *” Both of these considerations apply to this case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Congress’ purpose in enacting the Overseas Differentials and Allowances Act is again clear from the legislative history. The Senate Report explicitly states that the bill was designed to establish uniformity of benefits to overseas employees regardless of agency. S.Rep. No. 1647, 86th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1960), reprinted in 1960 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 3388. Plaintiffs argue that the Overseas Teachers Act controls exclusively their entitlement to benefits. Yet that Act’s legislative history clearly shows an intent to provide teachers living quarters allowance and post differential on the same basis as other employees, supra. Furthermore, the only intent Congress showed in enacting the Overseas Teachers Act was to eliminate the Civil Service law problems and provide pay equivalent to domestic schools — not differentiate between cooks, physicists and teachers on the basic entitlement to compensatory benefits such as living quarters allowance and post differential.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Quarters allowances ... may be granted to employees recruited outside the United States, provided that ... c. as a condition of employment by a Government agency, the employee was required by that agency to move to another area, in cases specifically authorized by the head of agency. 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.