Fries v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.2d 726 · 1948
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 1989
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 246 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009)
Relies on Standard Oil Company v. Edward Anderson · Denton v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad · Chisholm v. Gilmer · Eastern Extension, Australasia & China Telegraph Co. v. United States · 1 Wash. 2d 347 - Carboneau v. Peterson
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts ... shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages ... for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ When one person puts his servant at the disposal and under the control of another for the performance of a particular service for the latter, the servant, in respect of his acts in that service, is to be dealt with as the servant of the latter and not of the former. This rule is elementary. * * * ' Stott v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 270 Ky. 787, 790 , 110 S.W.2d 1086, 1087 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Du Vaul v. Miller“[t]he most important criterion of a joint venture is joint control or management of the property used in accomplishing its aims.”
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.