Koster v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
685 F.2d 407 · 1982
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Holley v. United States (1997), Voge v. United States (1988)
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 10 U.S.C. § 3447 · 10 U.S.C. § 3922 · 10 U.S.C. § 3963 · 10 U.S.C. § 892 · 37 U.S.C. § 204
Relies on United States v. Testan · Sampson v. Murray · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · Orloff v. Willoughby · Eastport Steamship Corp. 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The determination of satisfactory performance is committed by statute to the Secretary. 10 U.S.C. § 3963 (1976). Thus, even if this court were to determine that the Secretary’s decision is reviewable, for example for a constitutional violation, see Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.1971), this court could not affirmatively remake it as plaintiff asks us to do. Nor will the court substitute its own judgment where the administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence. ... A remand to an agency to make a determination that this court is not competent to make, without any immediate entitlement to money, is just the type of decision that was held to be beyond the power of the court in Testan . Accordingly, we must hold that this claim is not one that we can decide.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[0]ne of the fundamental premises inherent in the concept of an adversary hearing, particularly if it is of the evidentiary type, is that neither adversary be permitted to engage in an ex parte communication concerning the merits of the case with those responsible for the decision.... It is difficult to imagine a more serious incursion on fairness than to permit the representative of one of the parties to privately communicate his recommendations to the decision makers. To allow such activity would be to render the hearing virtually meaningless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We note that this case is not like our cases that have found jurisdiction when a serviceman has been mandatorily terminated after two passovers.... In those cases, the voiding of a passover vitiates the ground on which termination was forced, allowing reinstatement and a resultant money claim for lost active pay. Here, however, plaintiff ■ has served his 5 years, and voiding a passover would not change that.”
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.