Hamlet v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 1097 · 1995
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Holley v. United States (1997), James v. Caldera (1998)
29 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 16 U.S.C. § 590H · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 5 U.S.C. § 2105 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 5596
Relies on United States v. Testan · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · Morton v. Ruiz · Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham · Bush v. Lucas
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the promulgating agency was vested with the authority to create such a regulation; (2) the promulgating agency conformed to all procedural requirements, if any, in promulgating the regulation; (3) the promulgating agency intended the provision to establish a binding rule; and (4) the provision does not contravene a statute.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“is itself only a jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ujnder the Tucker Act, “if Hamlet’s employment was by ‘appointment,’ a breach of contract action against the government would be precluded.” CAFC Hamlet I, 873 F.2d at 1417 n. 5 (citing Hopkins, 427 U.S. at 128, 96 S.Ct. at 2511-12; Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. v. Sheehan, 456 U.S. 728, 738 , 102 S.Ct. 2118 , 72 L.Ed.2d 520 ... (1982)). In Sheehan , the Supreme Court examined the record and the relevant agency regulations and concluded that the respondent in that case was employed by appointment, rather than by contract, and, thus, the Tucker Act did not confer jurisdiction over the respondent’s contract claim against the United States for money damages. Sheehan, 456 U.S. at 735-37 , 102 S.Ct. 2118 .”
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.