Donovan v. United States (1978)
green
· 33 citation events
across 14 courts.
Showing the 22 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197820022026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Hondros v. United States Civil Service Commission (1983)
See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 402, 406 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 955, 957 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1206-08 (3d Cir.1978).
See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 402, 406 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 955, 957 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1206-08 (3d Cir.1978).
Serv. v. Sheehan, supra note 49, 102 S.Ct. at 2124-25; Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1206-08 (3d Cir.1978) (failure to promote employee in accordance with applicable regulations not remediable through back-pay award); Mack v. United States, supra note 61, 635 F.2d at 832 (Army’s alleged failure to accord plaintiff a disabled veteran’s hiring preference not remediable through money damages). 67 . 5 U.S.C. § 5596 (1976 . & Supp.
green
William G. Riplinger v. United States (1983)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 407 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 957 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208 (3d Cir.1978).
green
Gilbert v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1997)
In order to obtain relief under the Back Pay Act, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) she has. “undergone an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action,” and (2) that the action, “resulted in the withdrawal or reduction of all or a part of [her] pay, allowances,, or differentials.” Donovan. v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1207 (3rd Cir.1978).
green
Mitchell v. Secretary of Commerce (1989)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 406 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 957 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1207-08 (3d Cir.1978); McNutt v. Hills, 426 F.Supp. 990, 1002 (D.D.C.1977); Predmore v. Allen, 407 F.Supp. 1067, 1072-74 (D.Md.1976).
green
Whitt v. District of Columbia (1980)
See, e. g., United States v. Testan, supra at 399 ; Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1206 (3d Cir. 1978). 6 .
green
Robert A. Athey v. the United States 9 (2013)
Second a plaintiff must demonstrate that the action resulted in a withdrawal or reduction in all or part of the employee’s pay, allowances, or differentials. *620 Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1206-07 (3d Cir.1978) [emphasis added], 1.
green
Harriott v. Ashcroft (2003)
Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208 (3d Cir.1978).
green
Gilliland v. Brooks (1986)
Although mandamus is appropriate under the proper circumstances to command an official of a government to perform a plainly defined duty, Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208 [6] (3d Cir.1978), it is only “proper to command an official to perform a ministerial or nondiscretionary act.” Bass Anglers Sportsman’s Society of America v. Scholze Tannery, Inc., 329 F.Supp. 339, 350 [15] (D.C.
green
Maney v. Department of Health & Human Services (1986)
Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1207 (3d Cir.1978); see also 5 C.F.R. §§ 550.803 , 550.804 (1986).
green
Brame v. United States (1986)
Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208 (3rd Cir.1978).
green
Klein v. Office of Personnel Management (1983)
As a government employee, plaintiff is “entitled only tó the rights and salary of the position to which he has been appointed.” Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208 (3d Cir.1978).
Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208 (3d Cir. 1978).
See, e.g., Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1207-08 (3d Cir.1978); Hearn v. Turnage, 739 F.Supp. 1312, 1313 (E.D.Wis.1990); Predmore v. Allen, 407 F.Supp. 1067, 1072-74 (D.Md.1976); cf. Lee v. Brady, 741 F.Supp. 990 , 991 & n. 1 (D.D.C.1990) (awarding prejudgment interest for an unlawful termination and specifically distinguishing unlawful failures to promote). 1 18 Appellants rely most heavily on a statutory change that postdated Testan: The Civil Service Reform Act…
green
Olsen v. Arrington (1980)
See Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208-09 (3d Cir. 1978).
green
Olsen v. Arrington (1980)
See Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208-09 (3d Cir. 1978).
green
Caven v. Merit Systems Protection Board (2004)
See Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1207-08 (3d Cir.1978) (wrongful delay in promotion raised claim that plaintiff should have been paid at a higher rate, and was not a reduction in pay remediable under the Back Pay Act); see also Chaney v. Veterans Admin., 906 F.2d 697, 698 (Fed.Cir.1990) (a reduction in pay occurs only when there is an ascertainable lowering of the employee’s pay at the time of the action).
green
Kuehner v. Schweiker (1983)
Thus, we have held that mandamus is an appropriate remedy "only where a clear duty is owed the plaintiff or there is an abuse of discretion," Grant v. Hogan, 505 F.2d 1220, 1225 (3d Cir.1974); accord Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208 (3d Cir.1978).
green
Kuehner v. Schweiker (1983)
Thus, we have held that mandamus is an appropriate remedy “only where a clear duty is owed the plaintiff or there is an abuse of discretion,” Grant v. Hogan, 505 F.2d 1220, 1225 (3d Cir.1974); accord Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208 (3d Cir.1978).
green
Ainslie v. United States (2003)
Later in its opinion, the Court concluded that “Congress did not override this rule, or depart from it, with its enactment of the Back Pay Act.” Id. at 406 , 96 S.Ct. 948 ; see also Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1208 (3d Cir.1978); Hunt v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 810, 814 (2002).
green
Carpenter v. United States (1993)
Testan, 424 U.S. at 405 , 96 S.Ct. at 956 ; see also Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203, 1206-07 (3rd Cir.1978).