Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 901 F.2d 1530 - Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

901 F.2d 1530 · 1990

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
December 2017
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 20 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Katz v. Cisneros (1994), Kanemoto v. Reno (1994)

13 federal appellate · 20 district ·

350199020002010decided

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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 702

Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Bowen v. Massachusetts · Hill v. Lockhart · Walgren v. United States · United States v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

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

  1. “A party may not circumvent the Claims Court's exclusive jurisdiction by framing a complaint in the district court as one seeking injunctive, declaratory or mandatory relief where the thrust of the suit is to obtain money from the United States.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “test for determining if a case belongs in the Claims Court is whether or not 'the”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “of the complaining party is to obtain money from the federal government.'”
    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.