Alves v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.3d 1454 · 1998
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Anne Wyatt Eastern Minerals International Inc v. United States (2001), Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States (2004)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 43 U.S.C. § 315 · 43 U.S.C. § 315B · 43 U.S.C. § 315M
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council · Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · United States v. Fuller
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he distinction between grazing ‘permits’ and grazing ‘preferences’ is irrelevant because neither constitutes a property interest compensable under the Fifth Amend-ment____ Implicit in Fuller is the notion that grazing preferences that are attached to fee simple property are not compensable property interests under the Fifth Amendment. What is compensable is the fee-interest only, divorced from other govern-mentally-created rights or privileges appurtenant to the fee. Thus, the distinction between [a] grazing preference and [a] grazing permit is irrelevant from a Fifth Amendment perspective, and neither constitutes a compensable property interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To the extent that ... allegations sound in tort, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction under the Tucker Act....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There clearly can be no taking when whatever acts complained of are those of private parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.