MacHaria v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 24 district ·
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 4801 (Diplomatic Security Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · United States v. Mitchell · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer · United States v. Gaubert
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) a failure to provide guidance and advice on improving security at the Embassy, 2) a failure to provide security equipment to the Embassy, 3) a failure to train adequately Embassy personnel and contractors to deal with various security threats, 4) a failure to warn adequately Embassy personnel, and others, of potential terrorist threats, 5) an improper classification of the level of secu rity risk at the Embassy, or 6) falsely leading Embassy personnel to believe that security analyses had been conducted or would be conducted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[r]isk management ... beginning] with an assessment of the value of the assets, the degree of a specific type of threat, and the extent of the vulnerabilities.... A decision is then made as to what level of risk can be accepted and which countermeasures should be applied. Such a decision involves a cost-benefit analysis, giving decision makers the ability to weigh varying security risk levels against the cost of specific countermeasures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be balanced against the need perceived at other embassies, and the need for security must be balanced against the need for alternative projects that could consume scarce resources. Moreover, each of Defendant’s decisions regarding security involved balancing potential inconvenience to State Department employees against the perceived security gains that would result from a safety measure.”
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.