Bliss v. England’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 district ·
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1201 · 10 U.S.C. § 1372 · 10 U.S.C. § 5061 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bowen v. Massachusetts · United States v. Hohri · Herbert v. National Academy of Sciences
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To decide whether a plaintiff is attempting to sidestep Tucker Act jurisdiction, the court must look to the substance rather than the form of the complaint.”
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.