Wetherill v. Geren’s Empirical Analysis
616 F.3d 789 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 10216 · 10 U.S.C. § 14507 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 32 U.S.C. § 314 · 32 U.S.C. § 709 (National Guard Technicians Act of 1968)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Feres v. United States · Chappell v. Wallace · Whitman Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency v. American Trucking Associations Inc
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), the Supreme Court held that members of the armed forces who sustained injury while on duty due to the negligence of other servicemembers or the military itself could not sue the United States ... In a later case, Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983), the Supreme Court further articulated the policy basis of Feres and its progeny. Underlying Feres was a recognition of “the peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors, [and] the effects on the maintenance of [FTCA] suits on discipline.” Id. at 299, 103 S.Ct. 2362 (quoting United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 162 , 83 S.Ct. 1850 , 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1963) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court counseled that “[c]ivilian courts must, at the very least, hesitate long before entertaining a suit which asks the court to tamper with the established relationship between enlisted military personnel and their superior officers; that relationship is at the heart of the necessarily unique structure of the Military Establishment.” Id. at 300 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 .... The courts of appeals have extended Feres to encompass Title VII claims by servicemembers against the military. While the text of Title VII makes its strictures applicable to “employees ... in military departments,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a), that provision has generally been interpreted to ap ply only to civilian employees of the armed forces”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lindahl v. State
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.