Gotha v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
115 F.3d 176 · 1997
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 69 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Gould Electronics Inc. v. United States (2000), Irving v. United States (1998)
30 federal appellate · 69 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 2680
Relies on United States v. Gaubert · Berkovitz v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[tjhis case is not about a national security concern, but rather a mundane, administrative, garden-variety, housekeeping problem that is about as far removed from the policies applicable to the Navy's mission.” Id. at 181 . Given that the purpose of the NATO obstacle course was to train marines for combat and not to simply facilitate exercise, the maintenance here clearly was related to national security. The Marine Corps' policy of effectively training Marines for combat while reducing unnecessary risks was implicated. Because of this distinction, this case is not about”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[tjhere are obviously discretionary acts performed by a Government agent that are within the scope of his employment but not within the discretionary function exception because these acts cannot be said to be based on the purposes that the regulatory regime seeks to accomplish. If one of the officials involved in this case drove an automobile on a mission connected with his official duties and negligently collided with another car, the exception would not apply. Although driving requires the constant exercise of discretion, the official’s decisions in exercising that discretion can hardly be said to be grounded in regulatory policy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow.”
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.