George G. Allman v. W. H. Hanley’s Empirical Analysis
302 F.2d 559 · 1962
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Willingham v. Morgan (1969), Hardwick v. Doolittle (1977)
47 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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
Relies on Robert Herd Company v. Krawill Machinery Corporation · Johansen v. United States · Barney v. Latham · Brady v. Roosevelt Steamship Co. · Allen v. Williamson
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff was injured while within the scope of his employment as a mail carrier for the United States Post Office when struck by a car driven by another Post Office employee, Cameron, who was also within the scope of his employment. Plaintiff received benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act ( 5 U.S.C. sec. 751 et seq.) (now recodified, 5 U.S.C. (Supp. II) sec. 8101 et seq.) and then brought a common law negligence action against Cameron in the state courts of Michigan. Upon certification by the United States Attorney that Cameron was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident, the cause was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan under the Federal Drivers Act ( 28 U.S.C. Section 2679 (d)), and the United States was substituted as the party defendant. From the District Court’s order dismissing the action on the government’s motion for summary judgment, and denying plaintiff’s motion to remand the cause to the state courts for his negligence claim against Cameron, plaintiff appeals. “The Federal Drivers Act ( 28 U.S.C. sec. 2679 (b)) was enacted in 1961 to protect or immunize government drivers from personal liability on claims arising from vehicular accidents occurring during the course of their employment, and to accordingly relieve such employees of the burden of acquiring private automobile liability insurance for driving while on the job. See S. R. Rep. No. 297, 87th Cong., 1st Sess.; S.Re”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he absence of detailed grounds setting forth (the) basis for removal is not fatal to defendants’ right to remove. We think that the allegation that petitioners were officers acting under color of office in the employment of the United States was sufficient. Title 28, United States Code, Section 1446 (a) requires only a short, plain statement of facts entitling a defendant to removal. Allman v. Hanley, 302 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1962).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If an injury or death for which compensation is payable under this subchapter is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in a person other than the United States * * * and [the] beneficiary * * * receives money or other property in satisfaction of that liability as a result of suit or settlement by him * * *, the beneficiary [must repay the Employees' Compensation Fund for any benefits he received].”
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.