894 F. Supp. 2d 71 - Phillips v. Mabus’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
July 2019
most recently cited
5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Scheuer v. Rhodes
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). That directive was memorialized in a memorandum: On 13 July 2011, during a review of the Operational Logistics Program, in the presence of Mr. Greg Doerrer, Mr. William Robinson, and me, Mr. Michael Bosworth directed Mr. Charles Traugh to terminate the contract of [MDD] and not to resume it in Fiscal Year 2012. This action is due to reasons discussed at the meeting. Id. Soon thereafter, litigation ensued. After the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants agreed and stipulated to a consent preliminary injunction, requiring, among other things,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phillips v. Spencer“), ECF No. 88; and (3) Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Order for Summary Judgment, see generally Pls.' Mot. for Entry of Order for Summ. J., ECF No. 132. Mr. Miller and Plaintiffs filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to Counts VI and VII. See Def. Miller's Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 87; see also Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 113. 9 These motions are ripe and ready for the Court's adjudication. II. Legal Standard A. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phillips v. Spencer“The second, third and fourth elements are irrelevant here because [P]laintiffs do not contest that the alleged events occurred substantially within authorized time and space limits or were actuated, in some part, with the purpose to serve the master, nor do they allege the use of force.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phillips v. Spencer
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.