United States v. Hull’s Empirical Analysis
195 F.2d 64 · 1952
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2002 · most notably Dalehite v. United States (1953), United States v. Page (1965)
53 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2674
Relies on Anne Sweeney v. William G Errving · Jesionowski v. Boston & Maine Railroad · San Juan Light Transit Company v. Belen Requena · Schubert v. August Schubert Wagon Co. · Kelley v. Goldberg
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . 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 private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Tjhere are certain cases where under local law a private person may be liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of a carefully selected independent contractor. Restatement of Torts § 416 et seq. Presumably the United States would not be subject to liability in such a case under the Federal Tort Claims Act, for it may well be that the negligent independent contractor would not be deemed an “employee” of the government within the meaning of § 1346(b).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The use of the Latin phrase `res ipsa loquitur' in this connection may be unfortunate, as suggesting that some exotic doctrine is involved. It is nothing more than a case of circumstantial evidence, where plaintiff has proved enough `to get to the jury', and where the inference of negligence, though not necessarily a required one, is a permissible one on the balance of probabilities. See Prosser on Torts § 43 (1941); Sweeney v. Erving, 1913, 228 U.S. 233 , 238-240, 33 S.Ct. 416, 57 L.Ed. 815.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.