Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.2d 50 · 1981
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States (1981), Hahn v. United States (1985)
9 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 1506 · 28 U.S.C. § 1507 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 5 U.S.C. § 5596
Relies on United States v. Testan · Commissioner v. Sunnen · United States v. King · Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States · Cook v. Arentzen
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n claims like the instant one, where the employee asserts a right to a position to which he was never appointed, sovereign immunity has not been waived. Thus, the employee cannot get money damages to the extent his claim is for back pay for a position to which he was not appointed.... Testan left open the possibility of obtaining mandamus relief in the proper federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (1976). The [Supreme] Court noted [in Testan ] that the district court might have power to order the employee reclassified to a new position, but that such relief would be prospective only, 424 U.S. at 403 [ 96 S.Ct. at 955 ].... [W]e can enter money judgments ... where the employee has successfully sued for reinstatement in the district court. (Footnote omitted.) We still could not give the employee back pay for a position to which he was not appointed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Claim for temporary restraining order: only the district court has that power; we do not. (2) Mandamus: again, the district court has that power; we do not. (3) Declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act: only the district court has that power; we do not. (4) Reclassification to a new position: the district court has that power; we do not. (5) Back pay for the new reclassified position: no court has that power after the Supreme Court’s decision in Tes-tan. (6) Restoration to the old position: both the district court and the [Claims Court] have that power. (7) Back pay for the old position: the district court can award back pay only up to $10,000; there is no jurisdictional limitation on amounts the [Claims Court] can award. [Smith, 654 F.2d at 53 , 228 Cl.Ct. at 173.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.