Horner v. Acosta’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.2d 687 · 1986
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Hamlet v. United States (1995), Horner v. Jeffrey (1987)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 2105 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703 · 5 U.S.C. § 8331 (Capitol Police Retirement Act) · 50 U.S.C. § 1431
Relies on United States v. Testan · William Marbury v. James Madison · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Zemel v. Rusk · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) appointed in the civil service by one of [numerous government officials] acting in an official capacity ... (2) engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act; and (3) subject to the supervision of an individual named by paragraph (1) of this subsection while engaged in the performance of the duties of his position.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Congress] * * * defined employee for purposes of the CSRA in a manner which is inconsistent with the FPM language on contract service. Thus * * * it [FPM Supplement] has been made obsolete by the enactment of the statutory definition of employee. And the broad decision of the Board that appointment is not a required element of respondents’ case cannot withstand the express appointment requirement of the statutory definition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Respondents [took] the position that the decision to ‘hire’ them by an authorized official constituted an ‘act of appointment’ and that the documentation was ‘window dressing.’ They also contended] that law does not establish the type of appointive act which must be performed, [and] that a contract is a sufficient appointive document for this purpose, and that the Navy had authority to obtain their services by contract.”
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.