Williams v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘While the claim now prosecuted against Moore-McCormack is not statutory and the only limitation is laches, discussion of its timeliness would be merely academic, for the claim itself is foreclosed by the 1950 amendment to the Suits in Admiralty Act. This amendment declares the cause of action afforded by the statute against the Government to be “exclusive of any other action by reason of the same subject matter against the agent * * * of the United States * * * whose act or omission gave rise to the ' claim”. Libelant urges,- and cites Certain legislative history seemingly supporting his contention, that the amendment was not intended to merge, or otherwise preclude, recovery against the agent for the . latter’s own negligence. But the words of the statute express a broader purpose. Certainly on the present facts the language of the law is explicit in its denial to the libelant of a right of action against Moore-McCormack; it seems tailored to the present situation. Surely the omissions charged to Moore-McCormack occurred in its agency-ambit. . The terms of the statute are so opposite and so uncompromising that they end discussion of the point.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richardson v. American President Lines, Ltd. · In re United States

2. ““In cases where if such vessel were privately owned or operated, or if such cargo were privately owned or possessed, or if a private person or property were involved, a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained, any appropriate nonjury proceeding in personam may be brought against the United States or against any corporation mentioned in section 741 of this title. * * * ” Sec. 5 of the Suits in Admiralty Act, 1920, 41 Stat. 526 , as amended by the Act of December 13, 1950, 64 Stat. 1112 , 46 U.S.C. § 745 , provides: “Suits as authorized by this chapter may be brought only within two years after the cause of action arises: Provided, That where a remedy is provided by this chapter it shall hereafter be exclusive of any other action by reason of the same subject matter against the agent or employee of the United States or of any incorporated or unincorporated agency thereof whose act or omission gave rise to the claim: * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. United States · 227 F. Supp. 656 - Tebbs v. Baker-Whitely Towing Co.

3. ““Two exceptions to the rigid prevailing rule, that such statutes of limitations cannot be extended in any circumstances, have been carved out by our courts: In the prisoner of war situation, Osbourne v. United States, 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 767 ; and in the fraud situation Scarborough v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 4 Cir., 178 F.2d 253 , 15 A.L.R.2d 491 , certiorari denied 339 U.S. 919 , 70 S.Ct. 621 , 94 L.Ed. 1343 . We are unimpressed with the argument that insanity likewise should toll the Statute of Limitations and we expressly hold that it does not. See, to like effect, Kalil v. United States, D.C., 107 F.Supp. 966 , and also Judge Bryan’s reasoning, 133 F.Supp. [317] 318-319.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 196 F. Supp. 184 - Stepka v. United States