Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 796 F.2d 1131 - Chilicky v. Schweiker

Chilicky v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis

796 F.2d 1131 · 1986

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2005
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2005 · most notably Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), Schowengerdt v. General Dynamics Corp. (1987)

15 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

170198619902000decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Weinberger v. Salfi · Davis v. Scherer

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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “No action against the United States, the Secretary, or officer or employee thereof shall be brought under sections 1331 or 1336 of Title 28, United States Code, to recover on any claim arising under this title.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]t cannot be determined as a matter of law that [respondents] could prove no state of facts . . . that resulted in violations of their due process rights and consequent damages.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “to challenge irregularities in the contents of the summons,” while Rule 12(b)(5) designed to challenge “irregularities in the manner of delivery of the summons and complaint”
    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.