Rasul v. Rumsfeld’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 9 district ·

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

1. “[a] review of Sosa shows that the ATCA facilitates the bringing of an action for violations of the law of nations. The plain language of the ATCA, however, does not confer rights nor does it impose obligations or duties that, if violated, would trigger the Westfall Act’s statutory exception. For the Westfall Act’s statutory exception to apply, the ATCA would have to create substantive rights or duties that can be violated for purposes of the Westfall Act. A claim brought pursuant to the ATCA, therefore, is based on a violation of rights conferred under international law, not the ATCA itself. Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiffs fail to satisfy the exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b)(2)(B).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld · 479 F. Supp. 2d 85 - In Re Iraq and Afghanistan Detainees Litigation

2. “[C]onduct is “incidental” to an employee’s legitimate duties if it is “foreseeable.” “Foreseeable” in this context does not carry the same meaning as it does in negligence cases; rather, it requires the court to determine whether it is fair to charge employers with responsibility for the intentional torts of their employees. To be foreseeable, the torts must be “a direct outgrowth of the employee’s instructions or job assignment.” It is not enough that an employee’s job provides an “opportunity” to commit an intentional tort.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 444 F. Supp. 2d 19 - Harbury v. Hayden

3. “not until the Supreme Court decisions in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 , 124 S.Ct. 2633 , 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004) (granting Guantanamo detainees the right to counsel) and Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 , 124 S.Ct. 2686 , 159 L.Ed.2d 548 (2004) (granting federal courts jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo detainees' habeas petitions) . . . were military personnel provided their first indication that detainees may be afforded a degree of constitutional protection.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 479 F. Supp. 2d 85 - In Re Iraq and Afghanistan Detainees Litigation