Cornetta v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
851 F.2d 1372 · 1988
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably Ac Aukerman Company v. Rl Chaides Construction Co (1992), Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. SciMed Life Systems, Inc. (1993)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 3911 · 10 U.S.C. § 531 · 10 U.S.C. § 627 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 50 U.S.C. § 3935 (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Parker v. Levy · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · McCarty v. McCarty
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may include loss of records, destruction of evidence, fading memories, or unavailability of witnesses. This is not an issue here in view of the government's concession. The second type, economic prejudice, centers on consequences, primarily monetary, to the government should the claimant prevail. Id. at 1378 (citations omitted). The court rejected”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Retired pay is reduced pay for reduced current services. Hotinsky v. United States, 292 F.2d 508, 510 , 154 Ct. Cl. 443 (1961) (an officer draws retired pay because he is ‘still an officer’ in service of country); Lemly v. United States, 75 F. Supp. 248, 249 , 109 Ct. Cl. 760 (1948) (an officer receiving retired pay ‘is still an officer in the service of his country even though on the retired list’); see United States v. Tafoya, 803 F.2d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1986) (retired pay is “ ‘current pay” designed in part to compensate [an officer] for his continuing readiness to return to duty should his country have need to call upon him’); Costello v. United States, 587 F.2d 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1978) (’retirement pay does not differ from active duty pay in its character as pay for continuing military service’); Berkey v. United States, 361 F.2d 983 , 987 n.9, 176 Ct. Cl. 1 (1966) (retired pay ‘has generally not been considered a pension, grant, or gratuity, but as something the serviceman earns and has earned’). . . . “Unlike an award of back pay where the government in effect pays for unperformed service, receipt of retired pay by an officer means the government will pay for the reduced service it then receives. This is no detriment; the government gets what it pays for.” 851 F.2d at 1382 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Barker v. State“the government's contention that Cornetta's potential receipt of back pay if he is successful on the merits is sufficient to support a laches bar.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.