Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 F.3d 1280 - Able v. United States

Able v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

88 F.3d 1280 · 1996

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Beharry v. Ashcroft (2003), Jones v. New York State Division of Military & Naval Affairs (1999)

37 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

370199620002010decided

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

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Elrod v. Burns · Califano v. Sanders

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.

  1. “'(1) available remedies provide no genuine opportunity for adequate relief; (2) irreparable injury may occur without immediate judicial relief; (3) administrative appeal would be futile; and (4) in certain instances a plaintiff has raised a substantial constitutional question.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Our review of military regulations ... is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society ... and the tests and limitations to be applied may differ because of the military context.”
    2 later decisions 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.