Charles v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
28 F.3d 1312 · 1994
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Lawmaster v. Ward (1997), Sher v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (2007)
9 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 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 10 U.S.C. § 1204 · 10 U.S.C. § 1214 · 10 U.S.C. § 261 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · United States v. Testan · Hafer v. Melo · Nixon v. Administrator of General Services
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“States that fail to comply with federal regulations risk forfeiture of federal funds allocated to organize, equip, and arm state Guards”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 , the United States waived its sovereign immunity from nontort claims for money damages and specified which courts could hear such claims. Claims against the United States exceeding $10,000.00 (“Big” Tucker Act claims), founded upon the Constitution, a federal statute, a regulation, or contract, are in the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1491 . The district courts and the Court of Federal Claims have concurrent jurisdiction over “Little” Tucker Act claims, i.e., for money damages up to $10,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)(2) (Little Tucker Act).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Guard occupies a distinct role in the federal structure that does not fit neatly within the scope of either state or national concerns. In each state the National Guard is a state agency, under state authority and control. At the same time, federal law accounts, to a significant extent, for the composition and function of the Guard. Accordingly, the Guard may serve the state at times of civil strife within its borders while’ also being available for federal service during national emergencies.”
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.