Gould Electronics Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
220 F.3d 169 · 2000
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 101 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 432 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), Macharia v. United States (2003)
44 federal appellate · 101 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
Relies on Richards v. United States · 87 Ohio App. 3d 704 - Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. · In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation · Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries Inc Ct
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 432 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may be treated as either a facial or factual challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. In reviewing a facial attack, the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In reviewing a factual attack, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage“A claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) only if it `clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction' or is `wholly insubstantial and frivolous.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he FTCA waives sovereign immunity and grants district courts jurisdiction over tort claims against the United States “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.’’ 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)(1) (emphasis added).... When a case involves multiple alleged acts or omissions occurring in more than one state, the FTCA, as construed by [Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 , 82 S.Ct. 585 , 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962)], requires the District Court to engage in a complex conflict of laws analysis to determine which state law governs the jurisdictional inquiry.... Because Richards interpreted the “law of the place where the act or omission occurred” to mean the “whole law” of the state where the act or omission occurred, including that state’s choice of law rules, a two step choice of law analysis is required when multiple acts or omissions have occurred in-more than one state. First, the court must select between the states’ respective choice of law rules. See Richards, 369 U.S. at 11 , 82 S.Ct. 585 ; Ducey v. United States, 713 F.2d 504 , 509 n. 2 (9th Cir.1983); Bowen v. United States, 570 F.2d 1311, 1318 (7th Cir.1978); James A. Shapiro, Choice of Law Under the Federal Tort Claims Act: Richards and Renvoi Revisited, 70 N.C.L.Rev. 641, 669-75 (1992). Second, the court must apply that state’s choice of law rules to determine which state’s substantive tort law appli”
3 later decisions 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.