Roland A. Leblanc v. The United States’s Empirical Analysis
50 F.3d 1025 · 1995
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 271 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably James v. Caldera (1998), Rick's Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States (2008)
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (False Claims Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (False Claims Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 1206 · 5 U.S.C. § 1221 · 5 U.S.C. § 7701
Relies on United States v. Testan · Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie · United States v. Fausto · Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States · Griffin 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 271 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[allegations concerning violation of the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted to require the payment of money for their alleged violation, and, therefore, they do not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction in this Court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Tucker Act confers jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims, and a corresponding waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity from suit, when the constitutional provision, statute, or regulation in question expressly creates a substantive right enforceable against the federal government for money damages.”
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.