Carter v. Seamans’s Empirical Analysis
411 F.2d 767 · 1969
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 28 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Maier v. Orr (1985), Sheehan v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service (1980)
104 federal appellate · 28 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. § 1552 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Greene v. McElroy · Dugan v. Rank · Service v. Dulles · Cree v. Goldstein
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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) A clear right in the plaintiff to the relief sought; (2) A clear duty on the part of the defendant to do the act in question; and (3) No other adequate remedy available. Carter v. Seamans, 411 F.2d 767, 773 (5th Cir.1969)”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If, as the defendant contends, jurisdiction of the case sub judice is available only under the aegis of Section 1346, Title 28, U.S.C., there can be no doubt that this court is without power to resolve the controversy. Prior to 1964, Subsection (d) (2) of Section 1346 barred the district courts from adjudicating any civil action brought by an officer of the United States to recover fees, salary or compensation. See, e. g., Bruner v. United States, 343 U.S. 112 , 72 S.Ct. 581 , 96 L.Ed. 786 (1952). At that time the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction of such cases regardless of the amount claimed. In 1964, however, Subsection (d) (2) was deleted by Congress and as a consequence Subsection (a) (2) is now applicable to cases involving claims by officers for back pay. The present status of the law is that the district courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Claims over such cases, PROVIDED that the amount of the claim does not exceed $10,000. Since both parties admit that the claim in the instant case does exceed $10,000, it would seem that the Court of Claims is the only forum having jurisdiction unless there is some jurisdictional fount other than Section 1346. Carter v. Seamans, p. 772. 6”
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.