Hahn v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
757 F.2d 581 · 1985
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 21 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Bowen v. Massachusetts (1988), Hohri v. United States (1986)
62 federal appellate · 21 district · 2 state decisions
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 10 U.S.C. § 2114 · 10 U.S.C. § 2115 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · United States v. Testan · United States v. Mitchell · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Greene v. McElroy
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We hold only that '[i]f the declaratory or injunctive relief a claimant seeks has significant prospective effect or considerable value apart from merely determining monetary liability of the government, ... the district court may assume jurisdiction over the nonmonetary claims.' " Id. (quoting Minnesota by Noot v. Heckler, 718 F.2d 852 , 858 (8th Cir.1983)) (emphasis added). Thus, a determination that the court's order would do more than assert a past position but was "prospectively-oriented,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Claims Court, of: ... (2) Any other civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort, except that the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action or claim against the United States founded upon any express or implied contract with the United States ....”
3 later decisions 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.