Keepseagle v. Vilsack’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1691E · 26 U.S.C. § 501 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Massaro v. United States · United States v. Swift & Co. · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The result is that $380,000,000 of taxpayer funds is set to be distributed inefficiently to third-party groups that had no legal claim against the government. Although a $380,000,000 donation by the federal government to charities serving Native American farmers and ranchers might well be in the public interest, the [c]ourt doubts that the judgment fund from which this money came was intended to serve such a purpose. The public would do well to ask why $380,000,000 is being spent in such a manner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Keepseagle v. Perdue“[a]ll Native-American farmers and ranchers, who (1) farmed or ranched between January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; (2) applied to the [the Department] for participation in a farm program during that time period; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint with the [the Department] individually or through a representative during the time period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Keepseagle v. Perdue
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.