United States v. O'Neil’s Empirical Analysis
767 F.2d 1111 · 1985
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2002
10 federal appellate ·
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. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 7 U.S.C. § 1444
Relies on United States v. Testan · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Abel v. United States · Carter v. Seamans · Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana Railroad
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For mandamus jurisdiction to exist, three elements must generally co-exist. “A plaintiff must show a clear right to the relief sought, a clear duty by the defendant to do the particular act, and that no other adequate remedy is available.” [Citations omitted.] We find these elements are lacking here. First, the O’Neils have not demonstrated a clear right to receive the disputed funds or a corresponding duty by the USDA to disburse these funds to them. The government may attempt to collect the alleged overpayments through ad ministrative channels, even though its right to sue in the courts is now foreclosed. [Citations omitted.] By this decision, we do not decide whether the USDA may collect these funds through administrative channels. We merely hold that the issue is sufficiently substantial to preclude mandamus of the O’Neil’s claims. Additionally, mandamus is improper because another remedy is available in the Court of Claims [sic]. Despite the O’Neils’ protestations to the contrary, the Court of Claims [sic] can provide all the relief they seek. 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(2) states: To provide an entire remedy and to complete the relief afforded by the judgment, the [Court of Claims] [sic] may, as an incident of and collateral to any such judgment, issue orders directing ... correction of applicable records, and such orders may be issued to any appropriate official of the United States. In any case within its jurisdiction, the court shall have the power to remand appropriate mat”
2 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.