Graham v. Henegar’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.2d 732 · 1981
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Doe v. United States Department of Justice (1985), Smith v. Gte Corporation Gte (2001)
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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
Relies on United States v. Testan · City of Kenosha v. Bruno · Barrett v. United States · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Difronzo v. United States
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because adjudication in a federal district court of a lawsuit that falls within the exclusive [over $10,000] jurisdiction of the Court of Claims would seriously undermine the purposes of the Tucker Act, courts confronting the issue have consistently held that the Court of Claims is the sole forum for the adjudication of such a claim, even though the claim would otherwise fall within the coverage of some other statute conferring jurisdiction on the district court.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims, of: (2) Any other civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort...”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the scope of a Tucker Act claim must be determined by looking to the source of the substantive right upon which the claim is based. Only when the source of the substantive right for which the Tucker Act supplies jurisdiction provides for attorney’s fees over and above the amount of damages should attorney’s fees be added to the amount of damages claimed in calculating the amount in controversy. In this case, the source of the firefighters’ cause of action, 28 U.S.C. § 216 (b), specifically provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in addition to recovery of unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Poole v. Rourke
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.