Sharp v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis
798 F.2d 1521 · 1986
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 23 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Transohio Savings Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision (1992), Katz v. Cisneros (1994)
33 federal appellate · 23 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 291 · 41 U.S.C. § 602 · 5 U.S.C. § 5534 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Sampson v. Murray · Service v. Dulles · Liotta v. National Forge Co. · Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co. · Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Manufacturing 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he sole remedy for an alleged breach of contract by the federal government is a claim for money damages, either in the United States Claims Court under the Tucker Act, or, if damages of no more than $10,000 are sought, in district court under the Little Tucker Act. The waiver of sovereign immunity in the Administrative Procedure Act does not run to actions seeking declaratory relief or specific performance in contract cases, because that waiver is by its terms inapplicable if “any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which -is. sought,” 5 U.S.C. § 702 , and the Tucker Act and Little Tucker Act impliedly forbid such relief. (Internal citations and quotations omitted).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The sole remedy for an alleged breach of contract by the federal government is a claim for money damages ... we know of no case in which a court has asserted jurisdiction either to grant a declaration that the United States was in breach of its contractual obligations or to issue an injunction compelling the United States to fulfill its contractual obligations.” Sharp v. Weinberger, 798 F.2d 1521, 1523-24 (D.C.Cir.1986).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“One category was [t]hat part of appellant’s complaint and prayer seeking a declaration that he had a valid contract with appellees and an injunction requiring appellees to perform that contract. The district court, Judge Scalia wrote, lacked jurisdiction to hear that part of the complaint, the contract claim, because Tucker Act jurisdiction over contract claims was exclusive, and § 702 of the APA did not waive sovereign immunity. Over the other major category of ... claims, Judge Scalia wrote, the district court properly took jurisdiction. The other category included appellant’s claims that his transfer would be contrary to regulations, statutes and the Constitution, and his request for a declaration to that effect and an injunction of the transfer. As to those claims, [t]he District Court properly exercised jurisdiction to consider appellant’s claim that his reassignment would violate federal regulations, statutes and the Constitution. Tucker Act jurisdiction over those claims was not exclusive, and § 702 waived sovereign immunity.”
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.