Simpson v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “that the retroactive applicability of judicial decisions of federal courts is the rule, not the exception.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Graves v. Smith's Transfer Corp. · Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co.

2. “This century has seen the Supreme Court establish that both state courts and federal courts, may legitimately conclude that justice requires a decision to be applied non-retroactively. But, at least in the federal courts, the strong presumption has remained in favor of retroactivity. This presumption follows in part from the fact that every federal decision applies “retroactively” to a set of facts that has already taken place. The presumption promotes uniform treatment of litigants, since the reasons that lead the court to make such a “retroactive” decision should apply with equal force to other similarly situated litigants, no matter when their cases arise. Most court-made law is interstitial, constrained by previously enacted principles of positive constitutional and statutory law, and merely clarifies points that were previously open to debate. It is applied retroactively, since that is usually the fairest, least arbitrary way to proceed. Simpson at 84, 85. (Citations and footnotes omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 576 F. Supp. 1379 - Colon v. Gulf Trading Co.

3. “First, did the new principle under consideration overrule “clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied” or “decid[e] an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed,” second, in light of its “purpose and effect,” will retroactive application of the rule in question “further or retard its operation,” third, could retroactive application of the principle in question “produce substantial inequitable results” in individual cases____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 634 F. Supp. 1402 - Chris N. v. Burnsville, Minn.