Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 701 F.3d 193 - Vance v. Rumsfeld

Vance v. Rumsfeld’s Empirical Analysis

701 F.3d 193 · 2012

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 2733 · 10 U.S.C. § 2734 · 10 U.S.C. § 801 (Military Justice Act of 1968) · 10 U.S.C. § 892 · 10 U.S.C. § 948A (§ 1802 of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2340 · 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3261 (Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000)

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics

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

  1. “Farmer rejected a contention that wardens (or guards) can be liable just because they know that violence occurs in prisons and don’t do more to prevent it on an institution-wide basis. To get anywhere, Vance and Ertel would need to allege that Rumsfeld knew of a substantial risk to security contractors’ employees, and ignored that risk bécause he wanted plaintiffs (or similarly situated persons) to be harmed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “has never created or even favorably mentioned a non-statutory right of action for damages on account of conduct that occurred outside the borders of the United States.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The Supreme Court has never suggested that citizenship matters to a claim under Bivens . It would be offensive to our allies, and it should be offensive to our own principles of equal treatment, to declare that this nation systematically favors U.S. citizens over Canadians, British, Iraqis, and our other allies when redressing injuries caused by our military and intelligence operations. Treaties may pose a further obstacle to favoring U.S. citizens in the design of common-law remedies, but we need not decide, because the choice of remedies for military misconduct 31 belongs to Congress and the President rather than the judicial branch.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.