Hurick v. Lehman’s Empirical Analysis
782 F.2d 984 · 1986
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Martinez v. United States (2003), Spannaus v. U.S. Department of Justice (1987)
26 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2401
Relies on Peter J. Migliorini v. New York · Willard Dairy Corp. v. National Dairy Products Corp. · South Corporation v. United States · Cohen v. United States · United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The appellant argues that the statute was tolled for the period in which his applications for relief were pending before the Correction Board. As appellant conceded in the district court, however, the Court of Claims has rejected that theory and has held that resort to a Correction Board is a permissive (rather than a mandatory) step, which does not suspend the running of the statute. [Wilson v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 958 (1982)]; Eurell v. United States, 566 F.2d 1146 , 215 Ct. Cl. 273 (1977); [Kirby v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 527 (1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 919 , 94 S.Ct. 2626 , 41 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974)]. Although the appellant urges us to follow contrary decisions of other circuits, under [South Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d 1368 (Fed.Cir.1982)], we follow the decisions of our predecessor courts. In an attempt to avoid the precedents of the Court of Claims, the appellant argues that he is challenging not his discharge from the Navy but only the refusal of the Correction Board to give him relief from that discharge. The Claims Court has rejected that theory on the ground that the failure of the Correction Board to set aside a military discharge does not give rise to a separate and independent claim, since that action is merely ancillary to the discharge that the former serviceman is seeking to change. Cf. Friedman v. United States, 310 F.2d 381, 159 Ct. Cl. 1 (1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 932 , 83 S.Ct. 1540 , 10 L.Ed.2d 691 (1963). No matter how the appellant se”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The appellant argues that the statute was tolled for the period in which his applications for relief were pending before the Correction Board. As appellant conceded in the district court, however, the Court of Claims has rejected that theory and has held that resort to a Correction Board is a permissive (rather than a mandatory) step, which does not suspend the running of the statute. Wilson [v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 958 (1982)]; E urell v. United States, 566 F.2d 1146 , 215 Ct.Cl. 273 (1977); Kirby [ v. United States, 201 Ct.Cl. 527 (1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 919 , 94 S.Ct. 2626 , 41 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974)]. Although the appellant urges us to follow contrary decisions of other circuits, under South Corporation [v. United States, 690 F.2d 1368 (Fed.Cir.1982) ] we follow the decisions of our predecessor courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“after the right of action first accrues.”
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.