Frederick v. Shinseki’s Empirical Analysis
684 F.3d 1263 · 2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 1 (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) · 38 U.S.C. § 101 (Agent Orange Act of 1991) · 38 U.S.C. § 103 · 38 U.S.C. § 5101 · 38 U.S.C. § 5110 · 38 U.S.C. § 7292
Relies on Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Ratzlaf et Ux United States · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. · Brown v. Gardner · Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“APPLICATION FOR BENEFITS.—In the case of an individual who but for having remarried would be eligible for benefits under title 38, United States Code, by reason of the amendment made by subsection (a), and whose remarriage was before the date of enactment of this Act and after the individual had attained age 57, the individual shall be eligible for such benefits by reason of such amendment only if the individual submits an application for such benefits to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs not later than the end of the one-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) those who previously applied for and received DIC benefits, and whose remarriage before the effective date of the Act destroyed their eligibility for DIC benefits (such as Mrs. Frederick), and (b) those who for whatever reason never applied for DIC benefits upon the death of their veteran spouse, but who remarried before the effective date of the Act, and thereby lost eligibility for DIC benefits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here ambiguity persists after application of the standard tools of statutory construction, legislative history may be used to resolve any such ambiguity.”
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.