Bridger Coal Co./Pacific Minerals, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor’s Empirical Analysis
927 F.2d 1150 · 1991
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably United States v. Singleton (1999), The Proctor Gamble Company (2000)
32 federal appellate · 8 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 30 U.S.C. § 801 (Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972) · 30 U.S.C. § 901 (Black Lung Benefits Act) · 30 U.S.C. § 902 · 30 U.S.C. § 932 · 33 U.S.C. § 921
Relies on Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · 62 Cases More or Less Each Containing Six Jars of Jam v. United States · Zimmerman v. North American Signal Co. · Zeigler Coal Co. v. Kleppe
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We will not construe a statute in a way that renders words or phrases meaningless, redundant, or superfluous.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] motion for reconsideration renders the underlying Board decision non-final and thus precludes judicial review of that action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'quasi-judicial body which is empowered to resolve legal issues, but not to engage in overall administration through rule-making.' " Bridger Coal Co./Pac. Minerals, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 927 F.2d 1150 , 1153 (10th Cir.1991) (quoting William Bros., Inc. v. Pate, 833 F.2d 261 , 264 (11th Cir.1987)). Therefore, neither the Board's interpretation of the Act, nor its interpretation of the regulations, is entitled to any special deference by the courts. See Lukman v. Director, OWCP, 896 F.2d 1248 , 1250-51 (10th Cir.1990). Instead, "[w]e exercise plenary review in determining whether the Board's interpretation of [a black lung regulation] is consistent with Congress's intent as expressed in the Act.”
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.