Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 F.2d 1209 - Buckhanon v. Percy

Buckhanon v. Percy’s Empirical Analysis

708 F.2d 1209 · 1983

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc. (1984), Hendrix v. Page (1993)

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

3101983199020002010decided

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. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer · Milliken v. Bradley · Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission

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

  1. “even if the motion in the case at hand were captioned a motion to 'modify' but was in fact an attempt to relitigate the original injunction, we would not have jurisdiction over it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]lthough [the district court] considered the question of liability, the court never considered whether a district court had the authority, in an opinion issued on January 14, to order as a remedy payment of January benefits. Because this presents an important and substantially different question from that decided in the order of January 14, 1982, we therefore hold that the order of June 1, 1982, is appealable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1) and that we therefore have jurisdiction with respect to it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “payment of state funds, not as a necessary consequence of compliance in the future with a substantive federal-question determination, but as a form of compensation ... measured in terms of a monetary loss resulting from a past breach of a legal duty on the part of the defendant state officials.”
    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.