Lins v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
688 F.2d 784 · 1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Martinez v. United States (2003), Spannaus v. U.S. Department of Justice (1987)
6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 2501 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio · Soriano v. United States · Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States · Willard Dairy Corp. v. National Dairy Products Corp.
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]f disputes are subject to mandatory administrative proceedings [before judicial action may be taken], then the claim does not accrue until their conclusion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Presentation of the certificate of ownership for an overdue bill is not an ele ment of accrual of the claim for payment of the bill under the statute of limitations. The requirement is merely an administrative procedure designed to protect the Treasury from double liability. The regulation requiring the certificate so indicates. It states: “[T]he Secretary ... will ordinarily require satisfactory proof of ownership.” 31 C.F.R. § 306 .-25(b). It also authorizes the Secretary to waive the requirement. Id. § 306.126. Throughout the plaintiff’s protracted attempts to obtain payment of the bill, the Treasury took the position that instead of supplying the certificate, the plaintiff could file suit and thereby establish his right to payment. Filing the certificate pursuant to the regulations was a permissive administrative remedy which did not affect the creation of the plaintiff’s rights.”
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.