Antolok v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
873 F.2d 369 · 1989
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 15 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Schneider v. Kissinger (2005), Gersman v. Group Health Ass'n (1992)
17 federal appellate · 15 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 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 48 U.S.C. § 1681
Relies on Baker v. Carr · United States v. Nixon · William Marbury v. James Madison · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Castaneda v. Partida
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]ven if we err in our interpretation of [the Compact] Act, I would not reach the merits but would conclude that the District Court was without jurisdiction over this matter of international relations by reason of the political question doctrine. ____While I do not deny that the plaintiffs herein raise good faith objections to the decision of the Executive ..., our deferral to the political branches in political questions is not limited to those where they are correct. It would require our invasion of their sphere for us to make the determination that they were wrong, and it is against that very invasion that the political question doctrine protects the political realm from judicial invasion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any inquiry into the adequacy of the settlement figure would require, in essence, that the district court try the lawsuit. The adequacy of the settlement, after all, depends both on the extent of the plaintiffs’ injuries—a very difficult determination in itself—and on the likelihood of their collecting a judgment in the face of the government’s formidable defenses. The whole point of the espousal, however, was to achieve expeditious settlement of these claims and avoid protracted litigation. I believe that Congress did intend for the withdrawal of federal jurisdiction over the tort claims to be contingent on the validity of the espousal. But it would seem to me a bizarre result if we could uphold the espousal only after completing the sort of extended inquiry which the settlement was designed to prevent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is axiomatic in our federal jurisprudence that inferior courts ... have only that jurisdiction afforded them by Congress----In 1850, a unanimous Supreme Court held that [t]he Constitution has defined the limits of the judicial power of the United States, but has not prescribed how much of it shall be exercised by the [inferior] Court[s]; consequently, the statute which does prescribe the limits of their jurisdiction, cannot be in conflict with the Constitution, unless it confers powers not enumerated therein.”
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.