Bruzzone v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 509 (Justice Department Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Enhancement Act of 1988) · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 5 U.S.C. § 7511
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service · Haynes v. United States · Charles E. Chaudoin v. Clarence E. Atkinson, Jr · Dozier 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The determination of whether a case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims or the more general jurisdiction of the district court depends upon a proper construction of plaintiffs’ claims. If, as plaintiffs argue here, this case is truly one for injunctive and declaratory relief to compel the Secretary to perform her duty under the law as plaintiffs construe it, then jurisdiction is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1361. On the other hand, if the principal relief sought is an award of damages in excess of $10,000, then under the Tucker Act, jurisdiction exists only in the Court of Claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(2), 1491.”
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.