Ward v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 516 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably United States of America, Charles M. Carberry v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Ron Carey & William Hamilton (2001), Brighton Village Associates v. United States (1995)
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 38 U.S.C. § 4110 · 38 U.S.C. § 7462 · 5 U.S.C. § 5596 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on United States v. Testan · Camp v. Pitts · Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion · Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Bowen v. Massachusetts
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An employee of an agency who, on the basis of a timely appeal or an administrative determination ... is found by appropriate authority under applicable law, rule, regulation, or collective bargaining agreement, to have been affected by an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages [emphasis added] and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taydus v. Cisneros“The APA permits us to set aside the agency action only if it is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.' §5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). Although narrow, appellate review of an administrative record must nonetheless be careful, thorough and probing.”
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.