Jefferson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.2d 518 · 1949
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1991 · most notably Feres v. United States (1950), Jaffee v. United States (1979)
25 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 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. § 2674
Relies on United States v. Standard Oil Co. · Brooks v. United States · Lawson v. Suwanee Fruit & Steamship Co · Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation v. Local No. 6167, United Mine Workers of America · Order of Railway Conductors of America v. Swan
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A)ctions and essential military discipline would be impaired by subjecting the command to the public criticism and rebuke of any member of the armed forces who chose to bring a suit against the United States.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““One obvious shortcoming in these claims is that the plaintiffs can point to no liability of a ‘private individual’ even remotely analogous to that which they are asserting against the United States. We know of no American law which ever has permitted a soldier to recover for negligence, against either his superior officers or the Government he is serving. * * * “It would hardly be a rational plan of providing for those disabled in service by others in service to leave them dependent upon geographic considerations over which they have no control and to laws which fluctuate in existence and value. * * * “The absence of any such adjustment is persuasive that there was no awareness that the Act might be interpreted to permit recovery for injuries incident to military service. * * -» “We conclude that the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.””
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.