Jankowitz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 538 · 1976
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably United States v. Rivera (1995), Blusal Meats, Inc. v. United States (1986)
13 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 1503 · 28 U.S.C. § 2415 (Indian Claims Limitation Act of 1982) · 28 U.S.C. § 2416 · 28 U.S.C. § 2501 · 5 U.S.C. § 5596 · 5 U.S.C. § 7512
Relies on Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · Service v. Dulles · United States v. Bornstein · Merritt v. United States · United States v. McNinch
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a cause of action accrues to the Government in this case at the time of the alleged bribe and fraudulent reappraisal, [i.e. when the alleged fraudulent act occurred,] it would be quite possible that in future cases Government claims ... could become time-barred ... before the Government learned of the fraud____ It is inconceivable to us that Congress intended to allow a false claimant to insulate himself from all liability merely by forestalling the time of filing such a claim until 6 years after the alleged fraudulent acts which make the filing possible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * A claim of the United States or an officer or agency thereof that does not arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim may, if time-barred, be asserted only by way of offset and may be allowed in an amount not to exceed the amount of the opposing party’s recovery. [Emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Since we find that the Government in fact followed applicable procedural recommendations and safeguards ..., we do not agree that plaintiff's indefinite suspension without pay was either unjustified or unwarranted. This much of plaintiff's claim for back pay must fail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.