Rivera v. Becerra’s Empirical Analysis
714 F.2d 887 · 1983
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Alcaraz v. Block (1984), United States v. Smith (1986)
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Dandridge v. Williams · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Weinberger v. Salfi · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n individual at company A retires and begins to collect Social Security. For whatever reason, this person then goes to work for company B and, after six months there, is terminated. Assuming the individual is eligible for unemployment insurance because of the work done at company B, the level of unemployment insurance compensation will not be reduced at all. This is because the base period employer is not the same as the social security employer. The offset would apply, however, if the individual had returned to work for company A instead of working for company B. Under those circumstances, the base period employer and the social security employer would be the same.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although an agency action has a substantial impact on those regulated, it is not subject to notice and comment if it is otherwise exempt under the APA.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5380, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8755 Chief Probation Officers of California, and the County of Santa Barbara, California v. Donna Shalala, Mary Jo Bane, and Lavinia Limon, in Their Official Capacities, Department of Health and Human Services and Administration for Children and Families · Alcaraz v. Block““The best indicator of what statutory words mean is what they say.” Finnegan v. Matthews, 641 F.2d 1340, 1344 (9th Cir.1981). Determining the meaning of a statute from its legislative history is “a step to be taken cautiously,” Piper [v. Chris-Craft Industries ], 430 U.S. [1] at 26, 97 S.Ct. [926] at 941 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 124 (1977)], particularly when the meaning appears clear on the face of the statute. See Church of Scientology v. United States Dept. of Justice, 612 F.2d 417 , 422 (9th Cir.1979). Where, as here, there is no ambiguity in the statutory language, resort to the legislative history is usually unnecessary. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 , 184 n. 29, 98 S.Ct. 2279 , 2296 n. 29, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978); United States v. Rone, 598 F.2d 564, 569 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 946 , 100 S.Ct. 1345 , 63 L.Ed.2d 780 (1980).”
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.