Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 269 F.2d 578 - Joyce O'connor, as Administratrix of the Estate of Benedict O'connor, Deceased v. United States

Joyce O'connor, as Administratrix of the Estate of Benedict O'connor, Deceased v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

269 F.2d 578 · 1959

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
7
states following
July 1999
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently July 1999 · most notably 2 Cal. 3d 1 - Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1970), Sysco Food Services, Inc. v. Trapnell (1995)

43 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions

37019591960197019801990decided

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

Relies on Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company v. Addie Kelly · Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. United States · Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Moser · Jones v. Eppler

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

  1. ““The deceased, as a salaried employee, never had in his own hands the amount withheld from his earnings for Federal Income Tax purposes; and his wife and child could have no direct benefit from that part of his earnings. * * * The compensatory nature of the right to damages under the Tort Claims Act requires such consideration of Federal Income Taxes; the plaintiff-appellee can recover only for losses sustained.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The rate is to be determined by the trier. The rule is that there should be applied for such discount the rate which persons without financial skill could safely secure on their investments. Oleck, Text Book on Damages to Persons and Property, 966.25; Chesapeake and Ohio R. Co. v. Kelly, supra [1916, 241 U.S. 485 ] (Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.); Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Moser, 1927, 275 U.S. 133 , 48 S.Ct. 49 , 72 L.Ed. 200 (same). Although savings institutions have been paying 3¼% and 3½% this court cannot say that any rate between 3% and 4¼% is wrong as a matter of law.” At page 585.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““What the decedent was actually earning at the time of his death is a major factor in determining earning capacity. It is also proper to consider the length of time he worked for his employer (in this case four months); the prospect of his retaining his job and the opportunities for other employment; his chances for future promotion or demotion, his and his wife’s and child’s probable life expectancies, his physical condition, habits and the ordinary vicissitudes of life.””
    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.