Horner v. Hollander’s Empirical Analysis
895 F.2d 759 · 1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 7703 · 5 U.S.C. § 8336 · 5 U.S.C. § 8337 · 5 U.S.C. § 8341
Relies on Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee · Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts · Madison Galleries, Ltd. v. United States · Horner v. Jeffrey · LSI Computer Systems, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“r[an] counter to the plain meaning of the language” of the statute at issue because retirement eligibility under the statute “cannot reasonably be limited to” the class defined in the regulation). 6 . In 1974 the FLSA was applied to federal employees, Fair Labor Standards Act Amendments of 1974, Pub.L. No. 93-259, § 6(a), 88 Stat. 55 , 58 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 203 ). The FLSA, however, exempts”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. United States“[w]e concur in the Board's assessment of the plain meaning in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Newman v. Love
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.