355 F. Supp. 2d 30 - Briscoe v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 654 (§ 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 660 (§ 11 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 5 U.S.C. § 8101 (Attendant Allowance Adjustment Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 8116
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“commendable for their dedication to getting the mail out but deplorable for not recognizing the potential human risk involved. . . . [T]hese alleged actions demonstrated a gross disregard for a dangerous situation in which `actual deliberation [was] practical.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lombardi v. Whitman“the administrative review mechanisms created by Congress [through the CSRA] provided meaningful redress and thereby foreclosed the need to fashion a new, judicially crafted cause of action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“so long as the plaintiff has an avenue for some redress, bedrock principles of separations of powers foreclose [] judicial imposition of a new substantive liability.”
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.