Sullivan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 198 · 1994
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Ezekiel v. Michel (1995), Palay v. United States (2003)
19 federal appellate · 1 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 10 U.S.C. § 1089 · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 605 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · West v. Atkins · Polk County v. Dodson · Blum v. Yaretsky · United States v. Classic
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]pon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial ... Such action or proceeding shall be deemed to be an action or proceeding brought against the United States ... and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“officers or employees of any federal agency ... and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A Member of Congress who holds an office in the U.S. House of Representatives is clearly an employee or officer of the legislative branch of the federal government. The plain language of the statute thus suggests that Members of Congress are employees of the government, for “[s]ection 2679(b)(1) applies without exception to ‘any employee of the Government,’ and section 2671, as amended by the Westfall Act, provides that officers and employees of the [legislative branch] are encompassed within that phrase.” If Congress intended to exclude Members of Congress from the protection of the FTCA, it could have expressly done so within the language of the Act. Therefore, we find that as an employee of the government as defined under the FTCA, [the Congressman] is eligible for coverage if his conduct at issue was within the scope of his employment.”
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.