Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 FSUPP 764 - Adams v. Jackel

Adams v. Jackel’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
November 1992
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1992

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

301963197019801990decided

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. § 1498 · 28 U.S.C. § 2676 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680

Relies on Anniston Mfg Co v. Davis · United States v. Kales · United States v. Gilman · Uptagrafft v. United States · United States v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, N. A.

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The difficulty with granting the relief sought, however, is that even an unqualified certificate by the Attorney General—and the present certificate falls far short of that and may not be borne out by evidence hereafter coming to the attention of the United States Attorney— does not with finality convert the case into one against the United States. * * * The reference back to subsection (b) and its further reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) indicate that the case must not merely be a government motor vehicle case in which a proper Attorney General's certificate has been given. It must also be a case in which a remedy is `available' under the respondeat superior principle, that is, where in fact the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment and the exceptions of 28 U.S.C. § 2680 do not operate. * * * Until that issuable point of fact is set at rest with finality the case cannot be dismissed. * * *" (Emphasis added).”
    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.