Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 485 F.2d 571 - Parrish v. Seamans

Parrish v. Seamans’s Empirical Analysis

485 F.2d 571 · 1973

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
June 1984
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 881 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491

Relies on 343 F. Supp. 1087 - Parrish v. Seamans

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

  1. “. . . To provide an entire remedy and to complete the relief afforded by the judgment, the court may, as an incident of and collateral to any such judgment, issue orders directing restoration to office or position, placement in appropriate duty or retirement status, and correction of applicable records, and such orders may be issued to any appropriate official of the United States. In any case within its jurisdiction, the court shall have the power to remand appropriate matters to any administrative or executive body or official with such direction as it may deem proper and just.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Parrish alleges that the Court of Claims cannot provide an available adequate remedy, that he 'can receive a money judgment only' from that court, and that he is 'entitled to have his conviction declared unconstitutional and null and void, to be restored to his former rank of Colonel, to have his records cleansed of a criminal conviction, to be awarded retirement pay which he shall receive until his death.' 45 On August 29, 1972, the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims was amended to include in part:”
    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.