Bowman v. Stumbo’s Empirical Analysis
735 F.2d 192 · 1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2014
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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 26 U.S.C. § 3111 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 3304 (Federal Unemployment Tax Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 904 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chas Steward Mach Co v. Davis · Helvering v. Davis · Rivera v. Becerra · Henry Patterson Trust Reeves Banking Trust Company 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Secretary of Labor, in a directive to the states as to their obligation to implement such an offset provision into their laws, has construed subsection (A)(1) to of the offset provision to require that unemployment compensation benefits be reduced by the amount of Social Security or Railroad Retirement benefits if the claimant’s base period employer or chargeable employer [footnote omitted] contributes to the Social Security or Railroad Retirement program. This directive, in the form of an Unemployment Insurance Program Letter, No. 7-81 dated November 7, 1980 (“UIPL No. 7-81”), 2 “required” or “requested” the states to “take necessary action to assure by change in the State law that pension payment received by claimants are deductible under the State law as required by section 3304(a)(15), FUTA, as amended.” [footnote omitted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court is convinced that the plain language of the offset provision renders all such Social Security benefits applicable to reduce the unemployment benefits where, as here, both the former and the base period employers contributed to the Social Security system. * * * * * * Given the clear distinction between such public and private pensions set forth in subsection (I) and (ii), and the nature of FICA and RRTA taxes as the lynehpin of Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits, the Court is satisfied that the Social Security and Railroad Retirement systems must be deemed to be a “plan” to which a base period employer “contributes” through payment of the RICA or RRTA taxes. Consequently, the offset provisions apply to the plaintiff’s Social Security benefits as well as all class members’ Railroad Retirement benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the case of such a payment not made under the Social Security Act or the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, services performed for such employer by the individual after the beginning of the base period (or remuneration for such services) affect eligibility for, or increase the amount of, such pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or similar payment____”
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.