Brown v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
396 F.2d 989 · 1968
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Schlegel v. United States (1969), Wathen v. United States (1975)
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1214 · 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 12 U.S.C. § 1828 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 144
Relies on Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · Helvering v. Taylor · National Broadcasting Co. v. United States · United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co. · J. Gordon Turnbull, Inc. v. Commissioner
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rather, the de novo evidence has generally been new to the case, not merely to the court. At present, if the parties in this court have nothing new to add, they normally both rest on the administrative record. If that is not done and the government believes that a de novo trial will truly be a duplication of a prior hearing, it can move for summary judgment on the administrative record, suggesting that the claimant proposes to offer nothing new. If that is so, we are and would be hospitable to a disposition of the ease on the existing record. Duplication of hearings is being, and can be, avoided without excluding evidence which is far from repetitive. 184 Ct.Cl. at 515-516 , 396 F.2d at 999 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The customary rationale of the limited scope of judicial review of agency determinations is that deference should be accorded the judgment of an administrative decision-maker, either because the legislature granted it a measure of discretion on facts or policy, or because of the agency’s expertise in handling the subject matter. Most often, this leads to confining court intervention to instances in which the administrative decision was arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with applicable statutes or regulations, or unsupported by substantial evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We have also, since we first began dealing with disability retirement two decades ago, regularly considered evidence over and above that presented before the administrative boards if a party wishes to offer it. See Appendix, infra, for a list of cases which is not exhaustive. This practice has prevailed over the years, with only sporadic objection and no real deviation by the court. This coupling of the substantial-evidence standard with the acceptance of new evidence has not, in the view we have expressed, encroached on the administrative process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.