Marine Co Inc v. American Foreign Shipping Co Inc W’s Empirical Analysis
23 F.3d 709 · 1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Brian Brumfield v. Sherri Sanders (2000), Taber v. Maine (1995)
8 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 41 U.S.C. § 252 (Small Business Emergency Relief Act) · 41 U.S.C. § 253 · 46 U.S.C. § 2303
Relies on United States v. Orleans · Logue v. United States · Westfall v. Erwin · Andrus v. Glover Construction Co. · United States v. Smith
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he ‘contractor with the United States’ language of § 2671 adopts the traditional distinction between employees of the principal and employees of an independent contractor with the principal, and ... the critical factor in making this determination is the authority of the principal to control the detailed physical performance of the contractor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even an Attorney General's certification that a federal employee was acting within the scope of his employment ... does not conclusively establish as correct the substitution of the United States as defendant in place of the employee, however.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n express petition for certification [by the Attorney General] is not required and a brief on behalf of the named defendants may serve as a petition to certify that they were employees acting within the scope of their employment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.