Wronke v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 1569 · 1986
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Roth v. United States (2004), Bishop v. United States (1992)
11 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1631
Relies on United States v. Sherwood · Orloff v. Willoughby · Chappell v. Wallace · Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Dimension Financial Corp. · Sanders 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“especially appropriate ... where the Army was determining the suitability of a commissioned officer”) (citations omitted); see also Chappell, 462 U.S. at 305 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[the Board's] determination was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Having approved the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, and under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552 , it is directed: 1. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552 , the recommendation of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records granting partial relief is hereby accepted and approved, and it is directed that all the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected as shown in paragraph # 1 under Recommendations in the Proceedings of the Board in this case. 2. Relief is granted as an exception to policy based on the poor command climate within the applicant’s command and the lack of men — toring [sic] and guidance provided to the applicant in a challenging assignment. Further relief is not warranted, given the applicant’s admitted misconduct. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. 4. Furnish the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Denver Center, ATTN: Claims Branch-FYDEC, 6760 East Irving-ton Place, Denver, CO 80279-7000, a copy of your letter of notification to the individual concerned so that settlement of any monies due ma”
1 later decision 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.