Rosano v. Department of the Navy’s Empirical Analysis
699 F.2d 1315 · 1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Elgin v. Department of the Treasury (2012), Elgin v. Department of the Treasury (2012)
4 federal appellate ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 5 U.S.C. § 2302 · 5 U.S.C. § 7701 · 5 U.S.C. § 7702 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Dunlop v. Bachowski · South Corporation v. United States · Phillips v. United States Postal Service
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellate jurisdiction generally. The Board has appellate jurisdiction over cases specified in the Act where there have been prior actions within an agency. This includes certain decisions of the Office of Personnel Management relating to retirement and insurance benefits. This appellate jurisdiction includes: (1) Removal or reduction-in-grade of competitive or preference eligible employees; (2) Denial of within-grade step increases; (3) Actions based upon removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reduction-in-grade or pay, or furlough for 30 days or less; (4) Certain actions relating to the Senior Executive Service; (5) Actions otherwise appealable to the Board involving an allegation of discrimination; (6) Determinations relating to disability retirement, health insurance and annuities; (7) Actions involving reinstatement of preference eligibles; and (8) Those actions for which jurisdiction may be properly granted by regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If Dunn applied, then by removing all jurisdiction over board appeals from the other circuits and granting it exclusively to the Federal Circuit, the Federal Courts Improvement Act would have created a situation in which there is no judicial review available for non-monetary board cases. Putting aside any constitutional problems with this arrangement, there is a strong presumption against unreviewability in the absence of a specific congressional directive. Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 , 567, 95 S.Ct. 1851 , 1857, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 , 140, 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 1511, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Resolution of this case turns on the correctness of the board’s determination that the board did not have jurisdiction of the case. It is to that question we now turn, for, however the board or the court resolves it, this court has the power and duty to make that determination. [Emphasis added.]”
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.