Brown v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
698 federal appellate · 104 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,865 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Bailey v. United States (1995), Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)
698 federal appellate · 104 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Federal Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1110 · 38 U.S.C. § 1131 · 38 U.S.C. § 1151 · 38 U.S.C. § 1701 (Faster Care for Veterans Act of 2016)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Patterson v. McLean Credit Union · Russello v. United States · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.
Cited together with Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. · King v. St. Vincent's Hospital · United States v. Mead Corp. · Russello 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 1,865 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]mbiguity is a creature not of definitional possibilities but of statutory context.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“interpretive doubt is to be resolved in the veteran's favor”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”
11 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.