Irish v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
225 F.2d 3 · 1955
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015 · most notably Richards v. United States (1962), Finney v. Arkansas Board of Correction (1974)
60 federal appellate · 15 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
Relies on Kelley v. Everglades Drainage District · Hartford Fire Insurance v. Roberto · Steccone v. Morse-Starrett Products Co. · Conroy v. Perez
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a case where the necessary findings are lacking on the appeal, the court does not dismiss the appeal, but vacates the judgment and remands the case to the district court for appropriate findings of fact. Kelley v. Everglades Drainage District [1943, 319 U.S. 415 , 63 S.Ct. 1141, 87 L.Ed. 1485]; United States v. Trubow, 9 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 161 ; Steccone v. Morse-Starrett Products Co., 9 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 197 ; Waialua Agr. Co. v. Maneja, 9 Cir., 1949, 178 F.2d 603 , certiorari denied, 339 U.S. 920, 70 S.Ct. 622, 94 L.Ed. 1344.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Findings of fact are required under Rule 52(a) . . . The findings should be so explicit so as to give the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial-court's decision, and to enable it to determine the ground on which the trial court reached its decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““V. * * * It is not true that the said Smith negligently drove, operated, maintained or controlled the said mail truck. That it is true that the said mail truck collided with and ran over the plaintiff David Irish, a minor. That it is not true that the collision or the injuries sustained by the said minor David Irish proximately resulted from any negligence of the defendants or either of them. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.