Griffith v. Bell-Whitley Community Action Agency’s Empirical Analysis
614 F.2d 1102 · 1980
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Crowder II v. Jk Conlan (1984), Gilmore v. Salt Lake Community Action Program (1983)
13 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 291 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Bell v. Hood · Califano v. Sanders · Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before deciding that there is no jurisdiction, the District Court must look to the way the complaint is drawn____ [wjhere the complaint ... is so drawn as to seek recovery directly under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the federal court, but for two possible exceptions later noted, must entertain the suit.... Jurisdiction, therefore, is not defeated ... by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover. For it is well settled that the failure to state a cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“consideration would have to be given to an argument that if the state officials are deemed to be mere officers or employees of the Secretary so as to be within § 405(h), they are officers or employees of the United States or an agency thereof so as to come within the mandamus jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1361 ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A]part from its interest in seeing that a federal grant is actually used for its intended purpose, the government has no vested interest in the success or even the continued existence of any particular community agency.”
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.