Joan A. Lewis v. Internal Revenue Serv., 691 F.2d 858 (8th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Joan A. Lewis v. Internal Revenue Serv., 691 F.2d 858 (8th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dolls, Inc. v. City of Coralville, Iowa (iasd, 2006-03-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dolls, Inc. v. City of Coralville, Iowa
S.D. Iowa · 2006 · confidence medium
Serv., 691 F.2d 858, 859 (8th Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert K. Oja v. Department of the Army (2×)
Fed. Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
No. 105-311, 112 Stat. 2950. 5 Prior to a 1982 amendment to section 7703(b)(1), which conveyed to the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over all appeals brought pursuant to that section, several other courts of appeals also held that the time period in section 7703(b)(1) was jurisdictional See Devine v. White, 697 F.2d 421, 429 (D.C.Cir.1983); Boehm v. Foster, 670 F.2d 111, 113 (9th Cir.1982); Lewis v. IRS, 691 F.2d 858, 859 (8th Cir.1982). 6 Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed.Cir.1991), is consistent with Monzo .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Oja v. Dept. Of the Army
Fed. Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Cir. 1983); Boehm v. Foster, 670 F.2d 111, 113 (9th Cir. 1982); Lewis v. IRS, 691 F.2d 858, 859 (8th Cir. 1982). 04-3030 13 As we are bound by prior precedent unless and until overturned en banc, Sacco v. Dep't of Justice, 317 F.3d 1384, 1386 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Oscar Lee, Jr. v. The U.S. Postal Service
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
In addition, that court stated that since the language of § 7703(b)(2) parallels the language of § 7703(b)(1), which governs appeals of MSPB decisions not involving allegations of discrimination, and since the 30-day time period set out in § 7703(b)(1) has been determined to be jurisdictional, Monzo v. Dept. of Transportation, 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984); Devine v. White, 697 F.2d 421, 429 (D.C.Cir.1983); Lewis v. IRS, 691 F.2d 858, 859 (8th Cir.1982); Miller v. United States Postal Service, 685 F.2d 148, 149 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 916 , 103 S.Ct. *1069 1898, 77 L.Ed.…
discussed Cited "see" Margaret F. Johnson v. James Burnley, Secretary of the Department of Transportation (2×)
4th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. IRS, 691 F.2d 858, 859 (8th Cir.1982); Boehm v. Foster, 670 F.2d 111, 113 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam); Devine v. White, 697 F.2d 421, 429 (D.C.Cir.1983); Momo v. Dep’t of Transportation, 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984); Harris v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 363, 365 (1987).
discussed Cited "see" 45 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1117, 45 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,707 John W. James v. United States Postal Service and United States Postmaster General, Preston R. Tisch
8th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Larson v. American Wheel & Brake, Inc., 610 F.2d 506, 510, 511 (8th Cir.1979). 3 11 Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed. 1 The Honorable Clyde S. Cahill, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri 2 In Lewis v. Internal Revenue Service, 691 F.2d 858 (8th Cir.1982), we addressed the time limit fixed by 5 U.S.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joan A. LEWIS, Petitioner,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent
82-1254.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Nov 3, 1982.
691 F.2d 858
Taylor Fields, Colbert & Fields, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner Joan A. Lewis., Robert G. Ulrich, U.S. Atty., Judith M. Strong, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.
Bright, Arnold, Hunter.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Joan A. Lewis asks us to review an order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) upholding her dismissal from the[*859] Internal Revenue Service. The principal ground urged in her petition is that the IRS, in the course of investigating her conduct in the workplace, engaged in a prohibited personnel practice. We do not reach this question. Because the petition for review was filed in this Court more than 30 days after the order of the MSPB of which petitioner complains, her petition is out of time, and we must dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

The initial decision by the presiding official who held the evidentiary hearing on Lewis’s challenge to her dismissal was received by petitioner on December 7, 1981. An amended version of the initial decision, for the purpose of correcting an “erratum,” was received on December 11, 1981. Petitioner did not ask the Board to review the initial decision, so it became the final order of the Board on January 6, 1982. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(e)(1)(A). The petition for review was filed in this Court on February 19, 1982.

Our jurisdiction is conferred by Congress and limited by the terms of the statute that confers it. That statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(b)(1), provides:

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection [a provision not relevant here], a petition to review a final order or final decision of the Board shall be filed in the Court of Claims or a United States court of appeals as provided in chapters 91 and 158, respectively, of title 28. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review must be filed within 30 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of the Board.

Even if, as counsel suggested at the oral argument, the receipt of the amended initial decision is the operative date, the petition would still be out of time, because in that event the initial decision would have become the final order of the Board on January 11,1982, which is still more than 30 days before the filing of the petition for review. Nor do we inquire whether the IRS was prejudiced by the lateness of the petition. The time limit fixed by the statute is jurisdictional. It would be our duty to observe it and to dismiss the petition even if the respondent had not raised the point, or attempted to waive it. “Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1869). See also Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379, 101 S.Ct. 669, 676, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981).

The petition for review is

Dismissed.