Blanc v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
244 F.2d 708 · 1957
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Mathirampuzha v. Potter (2008), Nicholas J. Larionoff, Jr. v. The United States of America, Nicholas J. Larionoff, Jr. v. The United States of America (1976)
30 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on United States v. Babcock · United States v. Jones · Dismuke v. United States · Dahn v. Davis · Lynn v. United States
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact; and (2) not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or otherwise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[I]t has been well settled that, when the government creates the right to assert a claim against it, it need not provide for a judicial remedy. That applies aptly to allowances to federal employees under this statute which are grants which Congress could make to beneficiaries who would be determined in whatever way it saw fit to provide. Calderon v. Tobin, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 134 , 187 F.2d 514 , certiorari denied 341 U.S. 935 , 71 S.Ct. 854 , 95 L.Ed. 1363 ; Hancock v. Mitchell, 3 Cir., 231 F.2d 652 . It saw fit, without creating a right to sue the government or to court review of agency action, to provide for the allowance of compensation benefits promptly to those employees of the government which a specially constituted agency determined were within the statutory category. Dahn v. Davis, 258 U.S. 421, 431 , 42 S.Ct. 320 , 66 L.Ed. 696 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Though it may be informal, agency action which amounts to a genuine, fair consideration of a claim for benefits and not merely an arbitrary flouting of it, satisfies constitutional requirements and precludes further court review. The appellant appeared by her attorney at the hearing before the Appeals Board. Its decision and order as filed contains a comprehensive statement of the facts and of its plausible reasons for the affirmance of the denial of the claim. By no stretch can it be fairly said that its action was arbitrary or capricious.””
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.