Mitchell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
930 F.2d 893 · 1991
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Martinez v. United States (2003), James v. Caldera (1998)
20 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 10 U.S.C. § 8911 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 2501 · 5 U.S.C. § 5596
Relies on Bowen v. Massachusetts · Carella v. California · Sanders v. United States · United States v. Connolly · Sanders v. United States
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there is no other adequate remedy in a court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“By statute, the Claims Court may, in appropriate military back pay cases, ‘provide an entire remedy,’ including ‘restoration to office or position, placement in appropriate duty or retirement status, and correction of applicable records.’ 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(2). The Claims Court has, in fact, ordered back pay, (Skinner v. United States, 594 F.2d 824 , 219 Ct.Cl. 322 (1979); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804 , 219 Ct.Cl. 285 (1979); Burd v. United States, 19 Cl.Ct. 515 (1990); Casey v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 234 (1985)), restoration to military office, {Skinner; Sanders; Yee v. United States, 512 F.2d 1383 , 206 Ct.Cl. 388 (1975); Murphy v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 385 (1989)), placement in correct retirement status, (Gant v. United States, 18 Cl.Ct. 442 (1989); Casey) an correction of military records, (Skinner, Yee; Burd; Gant; Murphy; Casey).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“motion to reinstate,” in which he asks to be reinstated into the Army. Although the Court will consider this filing to the extent that it helps clarify Huff’s factual contentions, it will DENY the motion. 6 . Pursuant to the Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1295 , et seq., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the”
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.