898 F. Supp. 2d 108 - Remmie v. Mabus’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 555 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Scott v. Harris · Papasan v. Allain
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he question whether a particular action is arbitrary or capricious must turn on the extent to which the relevant statute ... constrains agency action. While the broad grant of discretion implicated here does not entirely foreclose review of the Secretary’s action, the way in which the statute frames the issue for review does substantially restrict the authority of the reviewing court to upset the Secretary’s determination. It is simply more difficult to say that the Secretary has acted arbitrarily if [s]he is authorized to act ‘when [s]he considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice,’ 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (a), than it is if [s]he is required to act whenever.a court determines that certain objective conditions are met, ie., that there has been an error or injustice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any financial benefit Plaintiff might receive in the future, therefore, would be the result of a 'subsequent administrative proceeding[ ]' and is thus 'insufficient to deprive the district court of jurisdiction.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] claim is subject to the Tucker Act and its jurisdictional consequences if, in whole or in part, it explicitly or 'in essence' seeks more than $10,000 in monetary relief from the federal government.”
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.