Egbert v. Boule’s Empirical Analysis
2022
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 6 U.S.C. § 211 (Border Jobs for Veterans Act of 2015) · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (§ 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer · Davis v. Passman
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.
“[w]hile our cases describe two steps, those steps often resolve to a single question: whether there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages [claim].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'special factors' indicating that the Judiciary is at least arguably less equipped than Congress to 'weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed,'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“ha[s] come 'to appreciate more fully the tension between' judicially created causes of action and 'the Constitution's separation of legislative and judicial power,'”
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.