In Re Janet G. Mullins (Tamposi Fee Application)’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
Relationships
Relies on National Association of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense Green · Olson v. 86-1 · In Re Oliver L. North (Dutton Fee Application) · Nofziger v. 87-1 · In Re Oliver L. North (Shultz Fee Application)
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the petitioner is a “subject” of the investigation; 2) the fees were incurred “during” the investigation; 3) the fees would not have been incurred “but for” the requirements of the Act; and 4) the fees are “reasonable.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“14 In re Mullins (Tamposi Fee Application), 84 F.3d 1439 , 1441 (D.C.Cir. Spec. Div.1996) (per curiam). We will address each of these requirements in turn. A.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Independent Counsel might reasonably be expected to point the finger of accusation”
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.