Small v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
333 F.2d 702 · 1964
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Gould Electronics Inc. v. United States (2000), United States v. Tropiano (1969)
19 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Feres v. United States · Richards v. United States · Rodriguez v. New York · Fair v. Meredith · 18 Ill. App. 2d 404 - W. P. Iverson & Co. v. Dunham Manufacturing 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right to pursue a lawful business or occupation is a right of property which the law protects against intentional and unjustifiable interference. A cause of action based upon such an interference is analogous to one based upon unlawful interference with existing contracts, and is governed by the same principles.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. College Savings Bank, in No. 97-5055, United States of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff in D.C. v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board. College Savings Bank, United States of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff in D.C. v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, United States of America, in No. 97-5086 · College Savings Bank 97-5055 Dc v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board College Savings Bank Dc“... the district courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States ... for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
2 later decisions 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.