Hallock v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 19 U.S.C. § 1589 · 19 U.S.C. § 1589A (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Lane v. Pena Secretary of Transportation · Lehman v. Nakshian · Kosak v. United States · Honda v. Clark
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“]. 9 In Hallock I, the District Court was confronted with a complaint in which the plaintiffs put forth claims of negligent destruction of property, conversion, negligent bailment, larceny, misfeasance, and personal injury. The FTCA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow civil actions 10 for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private perso would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 11 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). 12 There are various exceptions to this waiver of sovereign immunity, and it is the following exception, set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), which the District Court was constrained to apply in Hallock I: "Any claim arising in respect of ... the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hallock v. Bonner“Pursuant to § 2680(c), plaintiffs are precluded from pursuing their claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. All of plaintiffs' claims arise out of the detention of their property by agents of the United States, and are therefore barred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hallock v. Bonner“Any claim arising in respect of ... the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hallock v. Bonner
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.