green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
52.2 score
“contends that the agency's charac- terization of conduct in the specification of the com- plaint establishes that it effectively charged with criminal offense. the agency, however, explicitly charged with conduct unbecoming.”
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Doe v. DOJ
(2×)
contends that the agency's charac- terization of conduct in the specification of the com- plaint establishes that it effectively charged with criminal offense. the agency, however, explicitly charged with conduct unbecoming.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hornsby v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 530 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(2×)
Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 533 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shapiro v. Social Security Administration
Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 534 (Fed.Cir.2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spencer Neal Steinmetz v. Department of the Army
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Long v. Social Security Administration, 635 F.3d 526, 535 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Berlin v. Department of Labor
Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 534 (Fed.Cir.2011); see Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kalyanaram v. American Ass'n of University Professors at the New York Institute of Technology, Inc.
Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 530 (Fed.Cir.2011) (applying substantial evidence review to an appeal from the MSPB). 5 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Abrams v. Social Security Administration
Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 533 (Fed.Cir.2011). ‘“[G]ood cause’ is to be given meaning through judicial interpretation. ...” Brennan v. Dep’t of Health & Human Sens., 787 F.2d 1559, 1561-62 (Fed.Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abruzzo v. Social Security Administration
In Long v. SSA, this court reviewed the standard phrased as “conduct that ‘undermines public confidence in the administrative adjudicatory process,’ ” including misconduct “relate[d] in some way to the character traits expected of an ALJ,” and affirmed the good cause removal of an ALJ for conduct unbecoming. 635 F.3d 526, 533-36 (Fed.Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beatrez v. Merit Systems Protection Board
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Admin., 635 F.3d 526, 531 (Fed.Cir. 2011) (affirming the Board’s overturning of credibility determinations where the Board satisfied the more stringent standard). “[I]f the [Boardj’s reasons for overturning demeanor-based credibility determinations are not sufficiently sound, its decision does not survive substantial evidence review.” Haebe, 288 F.3d at 1301 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Seth Grossman v. Social Security Administration
See Long v. Social Security Administration, 635 F.3d 526, 537 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kwadwo Amoako v. Department of Defense
See Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶¶ 26, 28 (2010) (finding that out-of-court statements were more credible and probative than the respondent’s hearing testimony when, among other things, the statements were contemporaneous with the incident in question and made by disinterested parties), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Brian Mooney v. Social Security Administration
See Social Security Administration v. Long , 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 42 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Dorothy Gibbs v. United States Postal Service
See Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 42 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
James Laurenzano v. Department of Veterans Affairs
See Social Security Administration v. Long , 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 25 (2010) (stating that, when the record is sufficiently developed on an issue and there is no need to rely upon witness demeanor, it is not necessary to remand the case), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Bruce Fleming v. Department of the Navy
ID at 5; see Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 42 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Mark Carter v. Department of Commerce
IAF, Tab 43; see Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 10 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Deena Brown v. Department of Defense
See Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 42 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dennis Chiappetta v. Dennis Chiappetta, Jr.
(2×)
In doing so, he considered the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct, upon which the agency also relied in establishing good cause in its complaint. 0014 ID at 11, 15; 0014 CF, Tab 1 at 11-13; see Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 41 (2010) (finding the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct to be an appropriate guide for evaluating the conduct of ALJs), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
John Doe v. Department of the Navy
See Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 43 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Social Security Administration v. Sridhar Boini
See Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 13 (2010), 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Duane R. Gunville v. Department of the Interior
See Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 43 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Department of Health and Human Services v. LeAnn R. Canter
See Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 55 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
David O. Rassenfoss v. Department of the Treasury
See Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 25 (2010) (when the record is sufficiently developed and the 7 Board does not rely upon witness demeanor, the Board may adjudicate the case on the record and need not remand it to the administrative judge), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
David O. Rassenfoss v. Department of the Treasury
See Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 25 (2010) (when the record is sufficiently developed and the 7 Board does not rely upon witness demeanor, the Board may adjudicate the case on the record and need not remand it to the administrative judge), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pere Jarboe v. Department of Health and Human Services
See, e.g., Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 47 (2010) (stating that “it is the Board, rather than the employing agency, which selects the appropriate penalty”), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Michael Levinson v. Social Security Administration
See, e.g., Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 46 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Michael Levinson v. Michael L. Levinson
See, e.g., Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶ 46 (2010), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ram Chaturvedi v. Department of Veterans Affairs
See McGowan v. Veterans Administration, 30 M.S.P.R. 221 , 223 (1986) (testimony of certain witnesses was not probative because they were not present 7 to witness the entire incident in question); see also Social Security Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190 , ¶¶ 33-34 (2010) (the opportunity to observe the event in question is a factor in determining credibility) (citing Hillen v. Department of the Army, 35 M.S.P.R. 453 , 458 (1987)), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Danvers E. LONG, Petitioner,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent
2010-3108.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sep 13, 2010.
Unpublished
ON MOTION
ORDER
The Association of Administrative Law Judges et al. (AALJ) move without opposition for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in support of Danvers E. Long. AALJ also moves for leave to participate in oral argument.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is granted.
(2) The motion for leave to participate in oral argument is deferred for consideration by the merits panel assigned to hear this case. Copies of this order and the motion shall be transmitted to the merits panel.