Glarner v. United States, Department of Veterans Administration’s Empirical Analysis
30 F.3d 697 · 1994
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Blakely v. United States (2002), Santos v. United States (2009)
22 federal appellate · 8 district · 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. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 38 U.S.C. § 1151 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · Halas v. Department of Energy · Andrews v. Orr · Communications Workers of America v. Montano · Jackson v. Richards Medical Co.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once Congress has made such a waiver, we think that making the rule of equitable tolling applicable to suits against the Government, in the same way that it is applicable to private suits, amounts to little, if any, broadening of the congressional waiver. Such a principle is likely to be a realistic assessment of legislative intent as well as a practically useful principle of interpretation. We therefore hold that the same rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling applicable to suits against private defendants should also apply to suits against the United States.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Each person who inquires as to the procedure for filing a claim against the United States, predicated on a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the [VA] acting within the scope of his or her employment, will be furnished a copy of SF 95, Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death. The claimant will be advised to submit the executed claim directly to the Regional Counsel having jurisdiction of the area wherein the occurrence complained of took place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order for a person to file a tort claim under the FTCA, it is required that he 1) give written notice of a claim sufficient to enable the agency to investigate the claim and 2) place a value (or “sum certain”) on the claim, (citing Sellers v. United States, 870 F.2d 1098, 1101 (6th Cir.1989) (emphasis added); see also Douglas v. United States, 658 F.2d 445, 447 (6th Cir.1981)).”
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.