Wacks v. Reich’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 704 · 5 U.S.C. § 8128
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Goldberg v. Kelly · Bell v. Burson · Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management · Knight v. U.S. Fire Insurance
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The action of the Secretary or his designee in allowing or denying a payment under this subchapter is - (1) final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact; and, (2) not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a Court by mandamus or otherwise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]ourts have unanimously held that section 8128(b) prohibits judicial review of FECA benefit determinations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nurriddin v. Acosta
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.