Beech v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
345 F.2d 872 · 1965
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Albertson v. Tj Stevenson & Company Inc (1984), Hicks v. United States (1975)
29 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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. § 2680
Relies on Quinton v. United States · Hungerford v. United States · Kossick v. United States · Keleket X-Ray Corp. v. United States · United States v. Reid
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless action is begun within two years after such claim accrues . . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"When did the appellants' cause of action accrue? The date of the fall June 15, 1960 is the critical date. Where the trauma coincides with the negligent act and some damage is discernible at the time, the two-year statute of limitations begins to run, even though the ultimate damage is unknown or unpredictable. Tinkoff v. United States (7 Cir.), 211 F.2d 890 ; Keleket X-Ray Corporation v. United States (1960), 107 U.S.App.D.C. 138 , 275 F.2d 167 . See also Restatement, Torts, § 899, page 525. As this Court said in the Reid case, United States v. Reid, 5 Cir., 251 F.2d 691 , 694: ` Ordinarily there is a coincidence of negligent act and the fact of some damage. Where that occurs the cause of action comes into being and the applicable statute of limitations beings [sic] to run even though the ultimate damage is unknown or unpredictable.' The fall and alleged negligent conduct occurred on June 15, 1960. This suit was not commenced until February 28, 1963 more than 2 1/2 years later. That action is barred and to that extent the judgment of the District Court is affirmed." (My emphasis.) Beech v. United States, 345 F.2d 872, 874 (5th Cir. 1965).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. the Government had not only the duty to communicate to [the injured party] a diagnosis of her condition, but also to render proper care for her treatment. Under the allegations of the complaint there was a failure to perform this latter duty and such a failure is not covered by the 2680(h) exception. Hungerford v. United States (9 Cir., 1962), 307 F.2d 99 .”
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.