Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 667 F.2d 188 - Ungar v. Smith

Ungar v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

667 F.2d 188 · 1981

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
July 2014
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2014

15 federal appellate · 3 district ·

1001981199020002010decided

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 22 U.S.C. § 1631F · 22 U.S.C. § 1631O · 50 U.S.C. § 4302 · 50 U.S.C. § 4307 · 50 U.S.C. § 4329

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Johnson v. Robison · United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. · Schilling v. Rogers

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

  1. “[w]hen ... [a] plaintiff seeks to invoke the aid of the judicial branch on constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court and this court have both indicated that only the clearest evocation of congressional intent to proscribe judicial review of constitutional claims will suffice to overcome the presumption that the Congress would not wish to court the constitutional dangers inherent in denying a forum in which to argue that government action has injured interests that are protected by the Constitution.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “clear expression of Congress's desire to prevent the courts from passing upon ... constitutional claims”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[administrative decisions] shall be final and conclusive for all purposes, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary[,] and not subject to review.”
    2 later decisions 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.