498 F. Supp. 2d 74 - Wilson v. Libby’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 50 U.S.C. § 1809 (§ 109 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) · 50 U.S.C. § 403 (§ 102 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
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.
“As its framework for determining whether an employee acted within the scope of employment, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia looks to the Restatement (Second) of Agency (1957).” Wilson, 498 F.Supp.2d at 97 (quoting Majano v. United States, 469 F.3d 138, 141 (D.C.Cir.2006).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] Bivens action alleging a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment may be appropriate in some contexts, but not in others.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. United States“Bivens actions are not recognized Amendment by Amendment in a wholesale fashion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. United States
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.