United States v. Huff’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.2d 678 · 1949
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1979 · most notably Hector Martinez and Company v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co (1979), United States v. Hatahley (1958)
17 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 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. · Pennsylvania Co v. Chamberlain · United States v. Huff · Gulf Refining Co. v. Mark C. Walker & Son Co. · Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. Gelvin
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It therefore becomes patent that the evidence as to the loss of these animals in each case fails to rise above mere speculation and guess. “While it may be inviting to approve the trial court’s findings and allow at least a partial recovery for such losses, it remains our solemn duty under this evidence to disallow these unproved claims, as it is well settled that speculative damages are not recoverable. It was incumbent upon these plaintiffs to adduce some clear and convincing proof of specific losses resulting solely from the Government’s failure to repair and maintain the fences, and this they have signally failed to do.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Moreover, there has been no sufficient showing of how much of the damage from the loss of the sheep and goats was proximately caused by the Government’s failure to maintain and repair the fences under the lease, and how much of the damage resulted from the various other causes. There is no testimony whatever as to the specific dates of loss of any of the sheep and goats, or as to their age, weight, condition and fair market value at the time of the alleged losses. It therefore becomes patent that the evidence as to the loss of these animals in each case fails to rise above mere speculation and guess.” 175 F.2d 680 . 4”
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.