Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
372 F.2d 1002 · 1967
Citation profile
132 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,708 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Testan (1976), United States v. Mitchell (1983)
132 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 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
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Dalehite v. United States · Hurn v. Oursler · United States v. Causby
Cited together with United States v. Testan · United States v. Mitchell · United States v. King · Scheuer v. Rhodes · United States v. Mitchell
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 1,708 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.”
107 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused. (j) Any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war. (k) Any claim arising in a foreign country.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“On its face the section [alleged to be money-mandating in that case] is simply a regulatory measure (comparable to many another permission or license-granting statute) forbidding foreign sale of a vessel purchased from the Maritime Commission — unless the Commission sanctions the sale — and requiring Commission authorization for any foreign transfer. There is not a word in the text suggesting that the United States will compensate an applicant who suffers a business loss because of the Commission’s improper failure to grant the request. Nor are we pointed to anything in the Act’s legislative history hinting at that result. There is no decision of this or any other federal court holding or intimating that the United States will be liable under the Tucker Act for such a commercial injury resulting from a failure or wrong done in the course of the regulatory process.”
2 later decisions 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.