Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 648 F.3d 729 - Jackson v. Tate

Jackson v. Tate’s Empirical Analysis

648 F.3d 729 · 2011

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 10144 · 10 U.S.C. § 12304 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 32 U.S.C. § 502 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Feres v. United States · Brooks v. United States · United States v. Shearer · United States v. Johnson

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Subsection 502(f)(1) of title 32 places a broad swath of National Guard activity within the scope of federal employment for purposes of the Westfall Act, because it covers 'training or other duty' that a guardsman may be ordered to perform '[u]nder regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army ....' "). The training or duty ordered to be performed under paragraph (1) may include the following: (A) Support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense. (B) Support of training operations and training missions assigned in whole or in part to the National Guard by the Secretary concerned, but only to the extent that such training missions and training operations- (i) are performed in the United States or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or possessions of the United States; and (ii) are only to instruct active duty military, foreign military (under the same authorities and restrictions applicable to active duty troops), Department of Defense contractor personnel, or Department of Defense civilian employees. 32 U.S.C. § 502 (f)(2). Gilmore contends that Section 502(f) 's language limits the scope of "training missions and training operations”
    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.