Jackson v. Mabus’s Empirical Analysis
808 F.3d 933 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 886
Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Frizelle v. Slater · Roberts v. United States · 56 F. Supp. 3d 1 - Jackson v. Mabus
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Did the Board reasonably conclude that [Schmidt] had not come forward with any new and material evidence, or other matter not previously considered by the Board, that would support amendment of his record?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schmidt v. Spencer“[t]he question is not what [the court] would have done, nor whether [the court] agree[s] with the agency action. Rather, the question is whether the agency action was reasonable and reasonably explained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schmidt v. Spencer“The scope of review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schmidt v. Spencer
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.