Maggard v. J O'Connell’s Empirical Analysis
671 F.2d 568 · 1982
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. (1990), Lee v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama (1994)
21 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Greater Boston Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation, Intervenor. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Greater Boston Televisioncorporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Charles River Civic Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor. Greater Boston Tv Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors · American Ship Building Company v. National Labor Relations Board · Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Federal Maritime Commission · Brady v. Ohio · Podell v. United States
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that decisions of the trustees on pension eligibility are to be sustained by courts if they are not arbitrary or capricious, and if the trustees' factual judgments are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“at the expense of the intended beneficiaries.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ppellant in this action claims that her husband met the requirements of Blankenship Test Two: that he (1) completed 20 years of classified service prior to 1953, (2) had at least some signatory service after 28 May 1946, and (3) was physically unable to satisfy the “20-out-of-30” requirement because of a permanent mine-related disability. Appellees have not challenged — in their brief or at oral argument — that Maggard met the latter two requirements, and counsel for appellant conceded at oral argument that, with respect to the first requirement, nothing in the post-1937 period was disputed. Thus, the crux of this case is how many years’ credit is due Maggard for the 1921-37 period, for the entirety of which he claims employment.”
2 later decisions 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.