Davis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
667 F.2d 822 · 1982
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1983), Zambrano Tafolla v. City of Tustin (1989)
20 federal appellate · 5 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 10 U.S.C. § 938 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Imbler v. Pachtman · Butz v. Economou · Feres v. United States · Davis v. Passman
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may act to assist the court of appeals in the exercise of its jurisdiction ... such as by fil[ing] written findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the preliminary injunction order on appeal”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]o jurisdiction as to individual defendants is granted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Davis asks the court to review the quasiprosecutorial actions of his commanding officer in implementing the investigatory and adjudicatory functions of the military justice system. The court is compelled to exercise restraint both in review of internal military decisions, and in examination of the official acts of a prosecutor. Additional caution is mandated when the involvement of the court system in a military dispute threatens disruption of “discipline and the orderly conduct of military affairs” In our view allowing federal court review of military tribunals to determine compliance with state tort law would constitute an unjustified interference with the military system and would undermine military order and discipline.”
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.