Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 828 F.3d 995 - Patchak v. Jewell

Patchak v. Jewell’s Empirical Analysis

828 F.3d 995 · 2016

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
August 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 22 U.S.C. § 8772 · 25 U.S.C. § 465 · 25 U.S.C. § 479 · 28 U.S.C. § 1605A · 5 U.S.C. § 702

Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · United States v. Sherwood · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. · William Marbury v. James Madison · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer

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

  1. “While it may be true that Mr. Patchak was adversely affected as a result of the legislation, the record does not show that Congress acted with any punitive or retaliatory intent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[i]n order to decide whether a statute impermissibly inflicts punishment, [the Court] consider[s] each case in 'its own highly particularized context.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[T]he means employed by the statute must be rationally designed to meet its legitimate nonpunitive goals.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.