Roberts v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
316 F.2d 489 · 1963
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 1992 · most notably Di Cosala v. Kay (1982), Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Videfreeze Corp. (1976)
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Trowbridge v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia · Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. · Martin v. Bengue, Inc. · Stanley Co. of America v. Hercules Powder Co. · Littman v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To be subjected to liability, it is not necessary that the defendant could have foreseen the very injury which occurred, that an injury was sure to occur, the extent of the injury, or the manner in which it occurred, but rather it is sufficient that defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury and it knew or should have known that some injury might occur.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.