Rogers v. Ink’s Empirical Analysis
766 F.2d 430 · 1985
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Floyd v. United States (1988), Christopher Village, L.P. v. United States (2004)
19 federal appellate · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 42 U.S.C. § 2833 · 42 U.S.C. § 9901 (Community Services Block Grant Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 9902 · 42 U.S.C. § 9903 · 42 U.S.C. § 9905
Relies on Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Land US v. Dollar · Dugan v. Rank · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. · Walgren 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party may not circumvent the Claims Court's exclusive jurisdiction by framing a complaint in the district court as one seeking injunctive, declaratory or mandatory relief where the thrust of the suit is to obtain money from the United States.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Tucker Act (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 , 1491) grants concurrent jurisdiction to the district court and the Claims Court (formerly the Court of Claims) over money claims against the United States not exceeding $10,000. For claims against the United States involving amounts greater than $10,000 founded upon the Constitution, Acts of Congress, executive regulations, or contracts, the Act vests exclusive jurisdiction with the Claims Court.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the 'prime objective' or 'essential purpose' of the complaining party is to obtain money from the federal government.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.