Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 F.3d 1 - Magee v. United States

Magee v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

121 F.3d 1 · 1997

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 37 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Trans-Spec Truck Service, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc. (2008), Kiman v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections (2006)

7 federal appellate · 37 district · 1 state decisions

3001997200020102020decided

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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680

Relies on United States v. Gaubert · Berkovitz v. United States · United States v. Muniz · Mesnick v. General Electric Co. · Kelly 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Neither party may rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated denials, but must identify specific facts derived from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits to demonstrate either the existence or absence of an issue of fact.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to any claim ... based on the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he discretionary function exception will not apply when a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically pre-scribés a course of action for an employee to follow. In this event, the employee has no rightful option but to adhere to the directive. And if the employee’s conduct cannot appropriately be the product of judgment or choice, then there is no discretion in the conduct for the discretionary function exception to protect.”
    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.