Cioca v. Rumsfeld’s Empirical Analysis
720 F.3d 505 · 2013
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 14 U.S.C. § 3 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · William Marbury v. James Madison · Feres v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Distilling these cases to their core holdings, we restate the principles guiding our analysis in the case at bar: no Bivens action will lie where special factors counsel hesitation in creating an implied right of action and special factors clearly counsel hesitation in implying a cause of action for injuries arising out of military service.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barry Doe v. Meron“where a complaint asserts injuries that stem from the relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's service in the military, the 'incident to service' test is implicated”
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.