Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 886 F.2d 848 - Feit v. Ward

Feit v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis

886 F.2d 848 · 1989

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Saul v. United States (1991), Michael Massey and John Otten, M.D. v. David Helman (2000)

36 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

3801989199020002010decided

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. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 536 · 5 U.S.C. § 1206 · 5 U.S.C. § 2108 · 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002) · 5 U.S.C. § 2302

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization · O'Shea v. Littleton · Davis v. Passman

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

  1. “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional and an injunction barring the defendants from implementing the policy in the future โ€” can be obtained only from the defendants in their official capacities, not as private individuals”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Because Congress has provided Feit ... with an avenue of relief to redress violations of [his] constitutional rights; it cannot be said that Congress’ omission of a separate damages remedy for constitutional violations from the remedies available under the [statute] was inadvertent.”
    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.