Reeder v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Postal Reorganization Act expressly provides that postal employees serve pursuant to an appointment_ Reeder argues that employment contracts for federal employees should be recognized because the United States Supreme Court, in Loeffler v. Frank ... stated that by including a “sue and be sued” clause in the Postal Service’s charter, Congress intended to give the Postal Service the “status of a private commercial enterprise.” Such a result does not necessarily follow from the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Loeffler , and cannot be inferred from Congress’ actions. Although this Court recognizes that Congress did envision a broader role for the Postal Service when it enacted the Postal Reorganization Act, Reed-er has provided no evidence that Congress intended to change the underlying relationship between the Postal Service and its employees. Rather, the language in section 1001(a) of the Postal Reorganization Act reinforces the opposite interpretation.... In short, federal employees, and particularly postal service employees, serve pursuant to appointments and not employment contracts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 265 F. Supp. 2d 1309 - Fraginals v. Postmaster General

2. “(i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities; (ii) has a record of such an impairment; or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 191 F. Supp. 2d 612 - Dorn v. Potter