Lesoeur v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 965 · 1994
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Williams v. United States (1995), Valdez v. United States (1995)
20 federal appellate · 3 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 16 U.S.C. § 1A · 16 U.S.C. § 3 · 25 U.S.C. § 450 (§ 2 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · United States v. Gaubert · Berkovitz v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not difficult to see how relations between the Tribe and the United States could have been just as adversely affected by the [Park Service’s] warning Park visitors of the dangers of using the Tribe’s tours as by its regulating of those tours. In fact, the warning might well have appeared to the Tribe to be even more hostile and intrusive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 5.3 provides: Engaging in or soliciting any business in park areas, except in accordance with the provisions of a permit, contract, or other written agreement with the United States, except as such may be specifically authorized under special regulations applicable to a park area, is prohibited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a failure to warn falls within the discretionary function exception only if it implicates political or economic policy considerations. In the usual case, the failure to warn involves only 'safety considerations under an established policy, rather than the balancing of competing policy considerations.'”
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.