774 F. Supp. 2d 206 - Moses v. DODARO’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Lindh v. Murphy
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unlike LaFontant , in which the petitioner was still permitted to seek relief in an agency proceeding, the statute in the instant case bars plaintiff from relief in any tribunal.... As such, it is not merely a jurisdictional statute, but rather it also affects substantive entitlement to relief. Accordingly, in the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the Court applies the general presumption against retro-activity. See LaFontant, 135 F.3d at 162-163 .”
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.