Clark v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 252 · 1979
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 8340
Relies on United States v. Testan · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Cook v. Arentzen · Clark 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To hold, as [they ask], that the joining of injunctive relief with their damage claim is sustainable on the jurisdictional base of Section 1331, would expend the jurisdiction of the district courts beyond that which we think Congress intended. Indeed, in such a case as [this], to hold for [plaintiff] would make the jurisdiction of the district court coextensive with the Court of Claims. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(2), again in terms, limits the jurisdiction of the district courts on account of such claims to the maximum amount of $10,000, which we are without power to extend.” Clark v. United States, 596 F.2d 252 (7th Cir.1979), citing Cook v. Arentzen, 582 F.2d 870 (4th Cir.1978).”
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.