Drasek v. Lehman’s Empirical Analysis
762 F.2d 1065 · 1985
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Maryland Department of Human Resources v. Department of Health & Human Services (1985), Smalls v. United States (2006)
54 federal appellate · 13 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 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 632 · 12 U.S.C. § 1702 · 15 U.S.C. § 634 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · United States v. Mitchell · United States v. King · Greene v. McElroy · Dugan v. Rank
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny ... 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,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[F]or a claim in the District Court to be based on the Tucker Act [ 28 U.S.C. § 1346 ], it must (1) seek money (2) not exceeding $10,000 (3) from the United States and (4) be founded either upon a contract or upon a provision of “the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(2), that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the federal government for damages sustained.” [cite omitted]. If any of these requirements are not met, the claim falls outside the scope of the Tucker Act____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“provision on National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1702 ); Ferguson v. Union National Bank, 126 F.2d 753, 756-57 (4th Cir.1942) (same). Cf. Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Pierce, 706 F.2d 471, 475 (4th Cir.) ( 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1404 (a), a different”
2 later decisions 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.