Fogarty v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
340 U.S. 8 · 1950
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 17 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 180 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969), Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis (1979)
46 federal appellate · 17 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedFogarty v. United States (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 41 U.S.C. § 106
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · 80 F. Supp. 90 - Fogarty v. United States · Fogarty v. United States · Bell v. Singer
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 180 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Claims for losses shall not be considered unless filed with the department or agency concerned within six months after the date of approval of this Act, and shall be limited to losses with respect to which a written request for relief was filed with such department or agency on or before August 14, 1945, but a previous settlement under the First War Powers Act, 1941, or the Contract Settlement Act of 1944 shall not operate to preclude further relief otherwise allowable under this Act.” [Emphasis added.]”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * Since there is no definition of the term in the Act or regulations, and since the legislative history of the Act does not show that any settled usage of' the term was brought to the attention of Congress, no particular form of notice is required. But whatever the form of notice, it must be sufficient to apprise the agency that it was being asked to grant extra-legal relief under the First War Powers Act for losses sustained in the performance of war contracts.” [Emphasis added.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'the views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one.' * * * (T)he abortive action of the subsequent Congress 'would not supplant the contemporaneous intent of the Congress which enacted the . . . Act.'”
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.