Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 335 F. Supp. 2d 661 - Parrish v. Brownlee

335 F. Supp. 2d 661 - Parrish v. Brownlee’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
February 2012
most recently cited

2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 12203 · 10 U.S.C. § 12302 · 10 U.S.C. § 12683 · 10 U.S.C. § 651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 704

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Goss v. Lopez · Auer v. Robbins · Zinermon v. Burch

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A]ssuming for purposes of the irreparable harm analysis that plaintiffs arguments are meritorious and that the call to active duty is unjustified, a loss of liberty and companionship of family in such circumstances is significant and irreparable. Accordingly, if the injunction is improperly denied, there is a strong probability of irreparable harm to plaintiff pending trial and final judgment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “particularly in light of current events, in seeing that the Army's discretionary decision making with respect to personnel decisions is effectuated with minimal judicial interference.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the terms of plaintiffs contract and Army regulations and statutes provided plaintiff with sufficient notice that he would continue to be treated as a commissioned officer”
    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.