Hoffburg v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
615 F.2d 633 · 1980
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Barbara v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (1996), Schowengerdt v. General Dynamics Corp. (1987)
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
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 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · McKart v. United States · Orloff v. Willoughby · Alvado v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. Louisiana
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, only those remedies which provide a genuine opportunity for adequate relief need be exhausted. Hodges v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 417, 420-21 (5th Cir.1974). Second, exhaustion is not required when the petitioner may suffer irreparable injury if he is compelled to pursue his administrative remedies. Rhodes v. United States, 574 F.2d 1179, 1181 (5th Cir.1978). Third, the doctrine will not apply when administrative appeal would be futile, (citation omitted). Finally, exhaustion may not be required ... if plaintiff has raised a substantial constitutional question. See Downen v. Warner, 481 F.2d 642, 643 (9th Cir.1973). But see Stanford v. United States, 413 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir.1969).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a court should not review internal military affairs in the absence of (a) an allegation of the deprivation of a constitutional right, or an allegation that the military has acted in violation of applicable statutes or its own regulations, and (b) exhaustion of available intraservice correction measures.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n the military context, the exhaustion requirement promotes the efficient operation of the military's judicial and administrative systems, allowing the military an opportunity to fully exercise its own expertise and discretion prior to any civilian court review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Geyen v. Marsh · Winck v. England
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.