Nieszner v. Mark’s Empirical Analysis
684 F.2d 562 · 1982
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2018
10 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Orloff v. Willoughby · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Mindes v. Seaman · Pauls v. Secretary of the Air Force · Crawford v. Cushman
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] court should not review internal military affairs in the absence of (a) an allegation of the deprivation of a constitutional right, or an allegation that the military has acted in violation of applicable statutes or its own regulations, and (b) exhaustion of available intraservice corrective measures. * # * * A district court faced with a sufficient allegation must examine the substance of that allegation in light of the policy reasons behind nonreview of military matters. In making that examination, such of the following factors as are present must be weighed (although not necessarily in the order listed). 1. The nature and strength of the plaintiff’s challenge to the military determination. Constitutional claims, normally more important than those having only a statutory or regulatory base, are themselves unequal in the whole scale of values — compare haircut regulation questions to those arising in court-martial situations which raise issues of personal liberty. An obviously tenuous claim of any sort must be weighted in favor of declining review____ 2. The potential injury to the plaintiff if review is refused. 3. The type and degree of anticipated interference with the military function. Interference per se is insufficient since there will always be some interference when review is granted, but if the interference would be such as to seriously impede the military in the performance of vital duties, it militates strongly against relief. 4. The extent to which the exerc”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the nature and strength of plaintiff’s claim; (2) potential injury to the plaintiff if review is refused; (3) the type and degree of anticipated interference with military functions; and (4) the extent to which military expertise or discretion exists.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We do not agree with the Third Circuit's conclusion that the Mindes analysis requires the court to consider the merits of a case in making a threshold determination of reviewability”
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.