Wolfe v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis
846 F.2d 782 · 1988
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Kidwell v. Department of the Army (1995), Loughlin v. United States (2004)
13 federal appellate · 8 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 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 28 U.S.C. § 292
Relies on Schlesinger v. Councilman · Norton v. Larney · Vietnam Veterans of America v. Secretary of the Navy · Drasek v. Lehman · Sharp v. Weinberger
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“bright line rule is especially appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“5 U.S.C. Sec. 704. The Secretary argues that APA-based jurisdiction is not available here for several reasons. 6 First, the Secretary argues that appellants' claim includes a claim for monetary damages and therefore must be brought under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(a)(2), in which case exclusive jurisdiction for appellate review lies in the Federal Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1295(a)(2). We disagree, however, that appellants have raised a claim for monetary damages. The Secretary points to appellants' statement in their amended complaint that,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[collateral consequences of equitable relief do not implicate the Little Tucker Act, and therefore the district court did not in fact have jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act, as the plaintiff had never made a claim of money damages, only a waiver of collateral relief in excess of $10,000.”
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.