Talon v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
999 F.2d 514 · 1993
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016
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 38 U.S.C. § 107 · 38 U.S.C. § 7292
Relies on United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz · Mathews v. De Castro · Califano v. Gautier Torres a Califano · Livingston v. Derwinski · Harris v. Rosario
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After a careful reading of Quiban , we find nothing from which we would conclude that the court would have reached a different result if the applicants for pensions in that case had been residents of the United States.... ... [A]s we read the decision, Quiban does not hold that the validity of Section 107 hinges upon satisfaction of all three factors which were identified by the court as providing a rational basis for the disparate treatment of Philippine veterans. The fact that the estimated cost of extending full benefits to veterans of the Philippine Army would be $2 billion annually, is itself a sufficient basis upon which Congress could rationally exclude Philippine veterans from the pension benefits involved in this case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Service before July 1, 1946, in the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, while such forces were in the service of the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the military order of the President dated July 26, 1941, including among such military forces organized guerrilla forces under commanders appointed, designated, or subsequently recognized by ... competent authority in the Army of the United States, shall not be deemed to have been active military, naval, or air service for the purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon any person by reason of the service of such person or the service of any other person in the Armed Forces .... (b) Service in the Philippine Scouts ... shall not be deemed to have been active military, naval, or air service for the purpose of any of the laws administered by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs].”
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.