Lee v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 1406 · 1987
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Wood v. Ostrander (1989), Love v. United States (1989)
49 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 16 U.S.C. § 818 (§ 24 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2409A · 43 U.S.C. § 1613 · 43 U.S.C. § 1621 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on United States v. Kubrick · Block v. North Dakota Board of University and School Lands North Dakota Board of University and School Lands · Peter J. Migliorini v. New York · United States v. Schurz · Brown v. Hitchcock
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“on any ground fairly supported by the record.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“do not hinge on the QTA and are therefore not barred by the jurisdictional defects of the QTA claims. The same ANCSA claim is advanced here by James Lee. It was not decided in the published Lee decisions, and has been consolidated with the Donnellys' appeals. A. ANCSA Sec. 14(c) 24 Appellants claim that Eklutna, Inc., and Cook Inlet Region, Inc., (the native corporations) violated Sec. 14(c)(1) of ANCSA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1613(c)(1), by failing to convey them the disputed land. Section 14(c)(1) provides that the native corporation receiving patents under ANCSA”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“will trigger the exception to Sec. 2409a(e) and provide a jurisdictional basis for the QTA claim. 14 We do not hold, and do not read McIntyre to hold, that the Quiet Title Act constitutes the exclusive source of jurisdiction for all claims against the United States involving the United States' disposition of public lands. Section 2409a(e) of the Act provides that upon the United States' disclaimer of interest, jurisdiction in the district court will continue if the court”
2 later decisions 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.