Simanonok v. Simanonok’s Empirical Analysis
918 F.2d 947 · 1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2016
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The foundation of Simanonok’s suit is the asserted unconstitutionality of the [USFS-PA] and his claims against all defendants seek recovery for their actions in implementing and carrying out the [USFSPA]. Yet the [USFSPA] itself clearly deprives retirees such as Simanonok of any recovery from the United States or its agents merely for carrying out the Act — i.e. the [USFSPA] retracts any waiver of sovereign immunity which might be found elsewhere in the United States Code.... [T]his suit is at most a dispute over whether the [USFSPA] and the regulations enacted under it are constitutional; as such, § 1408(f)(1) expressly retains sovereign immunity for any claims arising out of compliance with the Act and its regulations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The United States and any officer and employee of the United States shall not be liable with respect to any payment made from retired or retainer pay to any member, spouse, or former spouse pursuant to a court order that is regular on its face if such payment is made in accordance with this section and the regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (h).”
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.