Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 45 F.3d 1362 - Wang v. Horio

Wang v. Horio’s Empirical Analysis

45 F.3d 1362 · 1995

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
August 2018
most recently cited

8 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2018

8 federal appellate ·

50199520002010decided

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. § 2412 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Pierce v. Underwood · Kolender v. Lawson · Bay Area Peace Navy v. United States · Letnes 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “ultimately judged to be erroneous by the district court, the government's position that [the IRS informant] was not an employee was 'substantially justified' " for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act). The Eleventh Circuit reached a similar conclusion in the context of "alleged misconduct of private parties hired by federal agents to conduct covert law enforcement activities.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`Substantial justification' under the EAJA means that the government's position must have a `reasonable basis both in law and in fact,' i.e., the government need not be `justified to a high degree,' but rather `justified in substance or in the `main' — that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.”
    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.