Friedman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 381 · 1962
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 340 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Bowen v. Massachusetts (1988), Sanders v. United States (1979)
27 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1201 · 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 1553 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 2501
Relies on Leedom v. Kyne · Soriano v. United States · Stark v. Wickard · McMahon v. United States · Harmon v. Brucker
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 340 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Congress ha[s] not entrusted an administrative officer or tribunal with the determination of the claimant’s eligibility for the particular pay he [seeks]; (b) the case tum[s] on pure issues of law or on specific issues of fact which the court [is] to decide for itself (i.e., Congress ha[s] not established any administrative tribunal to decide either the factual or the legal questions); and (c) in general the case call[s] upon the court to resolve sharp and narrow factual issues not demanding judic[i]al evaluation of broad concepts such as ‘disability’ (concepts which involve the weighing of numerous factors and considerations as well as the exercise of expertise and discretion). [Emphasis in original.]”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) . The judicial claim for disability retirement pay does not accrue on release from active duty but rather on final action of a board competent to pass upon eligibility for disability retirement (or upon refusal of a request for such a board). (b) . Normally, the Retiring Board is the proper board, but where the claimant has not had or sought a Retiring Board, his claim does not accrue until final action by the Correction Board (which in that instance stands in the place of the Retiring Board as the proper tribunal to determine eligibility for disability retirement).”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t does not follow from the general existence of judicial review for Correction Board decisions that those decisions create a new substantive cause of action which has its own, new, limitations period. That a tribunal’s rulings are subject to judicial review means that the administrative decision is open to scrutiny by a court, if a timely judicial proceeding is filed — not that the administrative tribunal’s decision, in itself, becomes the new measure and the new beginning of the plaintiff’s judicial rights. ... All that the existence of judicial review means is that the Board’s decision will be reviewed, in a proper case if a timely suit is brought.”
5 later decisions 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.