Hallock v. Bonner’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2022
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2676 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Gasho v. United States · Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills · Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Alabama Insurance Guaranty Ass'n
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.
“[P]laintiffs' earlier procedural loss does not prevent them from pursuing enforcement of their substantive rights against the proper defendants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“], centered on the judgment-bar rule found at 28 U.S.C. § 2676. That statute provides that "[t]he judgment in an action under [the FTCA] shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the Government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hallock v. Bonner“[t]his broad reading would have the practical effect of foreclosing the enforcement of substantive rights for no other reason than the commission of an earlier procedural error.”
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.