Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 F.2d 446 - Clark v. United States

Clark v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

218 F.2d 446 · 1954

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2008
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2008 · most notably United States v. Neustadt (1961), Lunsford v. United States (1977)

38 federal appellate · 8 district ·

250195419601970198019902000decided

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. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 33 U.S.C. § 701E · 33 U.S.C. § 702C

Relies on Dalehite v. United States · General Protective Committee v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Alton v. Alton · National Mfg. 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““* * * The section [33 USCA § 702c] does not limit the bar against such recovery to cases where floods or flood waters are the sole cause of damages. It does bar liability of any kind from damages ‘by’ floods or flood waters but it goes further and in addition it bars liability for damages that result (even indirectly) ‘from’ floods. The use of the word ‘from’ in addition to ‘by’ makes it clear that the bar against federal liability for damages is made to apply wherever floods or flood waters have been substantial and material factors in destroying or damaging property. The language used shows Congressional anticipation that it will be claimed after the happening of floods that negligence of government employees was a proximate cause of damages where floods or flood waters have destroyed or damaged goods. But the section prohibits government liability of ‘any kind’ and at ‘any place’. So that uniformly and throughout the country at any place where there is damage ‘from’ or ‘by’ a flood or flood waters in spite of and notwithstanding federal flood control works no liability of any kind may attach to or rest upon the United States therefor.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Even though contrary assumptions be indulged, there could be no recovery for negligent misrepresentations of H.A.P. or its employees. 28 U.S.C.A. 2680(h) exempts from the coverage of the Tort Claims Act any claim arising out of misrepresentation. Misrepresentation as used in this section has been held to include negligent as well as intentional misrepresentation.” Id. at p. 452 (citations omitted).”
    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.