310 F. Supp. 2d 251 - Schneider v. Kissinger’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 21 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (§ 2 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Baker v. Carr · United States v. Sherwood · McNeil 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or (4) the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government; or (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or (6) the potentiality of embarrassment of multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“initial complaint met the definition of the FTCA for ‘a claim against the United States’ under 28 U.S.C. §'2675(a)” and”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally, I must note that I am signing the bill based on my understanding that the Act does not permit suits for alleged human rights violations in the context of United States military operations abroad or law enforcement actions. Because the Act permits suits based only on actions “under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation,” I do not believe it is the Congress’ intent that [the TVPA] should apply to United States Armed Forces or law enforcement operations, which are always carried out under the authority of United States law.”
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.