Rowe v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
633 F.2d 799 · 1980
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2012 · most notably Bowen v. Massachusetts (1988), North Side Lumber Co. v. Block (1985)
51 federal appellate · 17 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 43 U.S.C. § 1613 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Richardson v. Morris · Beck v. Alabama · Sheehan v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“preclude review of agency action when the relief sought is other than money damages.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“real effort of the complaining party is. to': obtain money (in excess of $10,000) from the federal govern*, ment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensible party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: PROVIDED, That ... (n)othing herein (1) affects other limitations on judicial review where the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or (2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
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.