Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 982 F.2d 790 - Director Office of Workers' Compensation Programs United States Department of Labor v. General Dynamics Corporation

Director Office of Workers' Compensation Programs United States Department of Labor v. General Dynamics Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

982 F.2d 790 · 1992

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
December 2015
most recently cited

31 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Lagandaon v. Ashcroft (2004), Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1994)

31 federal appellate ·

280199220002010decided

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

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co. · Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc. · Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

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

  1. “'all functions of the Department of Labor with respect to the administration of benefit programs' under the [LHWCA] and designated the Director to represent him in all review proceedings. Thus the Director, as the policy-making authority, is to be accorded deference.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in which an asymptomatic condition, not physically impairing the employee in any way, leaves him more susceptible in the future to a serious injury than a completely healthy employee, such that a prospective employer would discriminate against the applicant. Such discrimination would be contrary to the congressional purpose in enacting section 8(f).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The section 8(f) relief provision was not intended to create a windfall for any employer that hires a disabled worker by limiting its liability even when the later injury itself would have permanently and totally disabled the employee”
    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.