National Mfg. Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
210 F.2d 263 · 1954
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 16 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 166 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015 · most notably United States v. Neustadt (1961), United States v. James (1986)
79 federal appellate · 16 district · 8 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 33 U.S.C. § 701E · 33 U.S.C. § 702C · 33 U.S.C. § 702J · 33 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Feres v. United States · Dalehite v. United States · United States v. Borden Co. · Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath · Sanguinetti 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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress clearly sought to ensure beyond doubt that sovereign immunity would protect the Government from “any” liability associated with flood control. As the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit explained three decades ago in National Mfg., § 702c’s language “safeguarded the United States against liability of any kind for damage from or by floods or flood waters in the broadest and most emphatic language.””
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place * * *.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The purpose of excepting federal liability on account of negligent misrepresentation necessarily extends to negligent failure to represent which has the same effect as an affirmative misrepresentation. The intent of the section is to except from the Act cases where mere ‘talk’ or failure to ‘talk’ on the part of a government employee is asserted as the proximate cause of damage sought to be recovered from the United States.” Id. at p. 276.”
3 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.