Wright v. Park’s Empirical Analysis
5 F.3d 586 · 1993
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Ruiz Rivera v. Riley (2000), Jones v. New York State Division of Military & Naval Affairs (1999)
32 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 32 U.S.C. § 102 · 32 U.S.C. § 709 (National Guard Technicians Act of 1968) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Butz v. Economou · Carnegie v. United States · Feres v. United States · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant, who remains a colonel in the [Air National Guard], argues strenuously that, for purposes of this case, his civilian status may be disentangled from his military status, and that he should be free to sue for discrimination implicating the former. But this balkanization of technicians’ work is belied by Congress’s description of the functions that ANG technicians serve, by the unmistakable intendment of the Technician Act (the statute that Congress enacted in 1968 to regulate such personnel), and by the resulting ties that bind technicians’ civilian and military roles. [T]he Technician Act evidences Congress’s intention that technicians, while retaining their positions as civil employees outside the competitive civil service, will serve simultaneously as employees of the appropriate military department, subject to its regulation. It is axiomatic that the National Guard is military in character.... We think it follows that technicians are martial in character. Indeed, under the Technician Act’s composite regime, technicians are considerably more than nominal members of the military establishment. ... Because National Guard technicians serve as the Guard’s support staff and are, in fact, those whose job it is to maintain and assure the Guard’s strength and organization, they are indispensable to this nation’s defense. See, e.g., 32 U.S.C. § 709 (a) (assigning to technicians such distinctively military tasks as “(1) the administration and training of the National Guard;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Bivens is the case establishing, as a general proposition, that victims of a constitutional violation perpetrated by a federal actor may sue the offender for damages in federal court despite the absence of explicit statutory authorization for such suits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“in accepting this bright-line rule as the definitive statement on justiciability of civil rights claims in the military context.”
2 later decisions 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.