Moden v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
404 F.3d 1335 · 2005
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably Jan's Helicopter Service, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration (2008), State ex rel. Doner v. Zody (2011)
10 federal appellate · 7 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 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · United States v. Mitchell · Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York · City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. · Fisher 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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In S¡yruill we concluded that subject matter jurisdiction exists when a petitioner asserts a nonfrivolous claim: To the extent a successful claim against the government requires compliance with all statutory elements of the claim, failure of proof of an element of the cause of action means the petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks. To conclude in such a case that the petitioner loses because the forum is “without jurisdiction” is to obscure the nature of the defect. It would be more accurate to conclude that the petitioner has failed to prove the necessary elements of a cause for which relief could be granted. The forum has jurisdiction to hear the matter in the first instance — that is, subject-matter jurisdiction existed — as long as the petitioner asserted nonfrivolous claims. [Spruill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,] 978 F.2d 679, 687-88 [(Fed.Cir.1992)]. Similarly, the Supreme Court has identified that “[dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper only when the claim is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’ ” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 , 94 S.Ct. 772 , 39 L.Ed.2d 73 (1974)) (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, a property loss compensable as a taking only results when the government intends to invade a protected property interest or the asserted invasion is the direct, natural, or probable result of an authorized activity and not the incidental or consequential injury inflicted by the action. Second, the nature and magnitude of the government action must be considered. [T]o constitute a taking, an invasion must appropriate a benefit to the government at the expense of the property owner, or at least preempt the owner[’]s right to enjoy his property for an extended period of time, rather than merely inflict an injury that reduces its value.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for inverse condemnation * * * is 'a cause of action against the government to recover the value of property taken by the government without formal exercise of the power of eminent domain.'”
2 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.