Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 373 F.2d 227 - Ingham v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Ingham v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

373 F.2d 227 · 1967

Citation profile

195
cited by 195 later decisions
5
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

79 federal appellate · 25 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 195 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Blessing v. United States (1978), Bedford Affiliates v. Sills (1998)

79 federal appellate · 25 district · 6 state decisions

7301967197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680

Relies on Dalehite v. United States · Indian Towing Company v. United States · Douglas v. Alabama · United States v. Brown · United States v. Neustadt

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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is now well established that when the government undertakes to perform services, which in the absence of specific legislation would not be required, it will, nevertheless, be liable if these activities are performed negligently. Thus, for example, though the government may be under no obligation in the absence of statute to render medical care to discharged veterans, when it decides to provide such services and does so negligently, it has been held liable under the Tort Claims Act. United States v. Brown, 348 U.S. 110 , 75 S.Ct. 141 , 99 L.Ed. 139 (1954).””
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We are unable to conclude that the accident was not reasonably foreseeable as a result of the government’s negligent failure to provide up-to-date weather information. Indeed, the government was the original wrongdoer whose negligence set in motion the entire chain of events which finally culminated in the tragic crash. The government’s negligence was ever present. 4”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Where the gravamen of the complaint is the negligent performance of operational tasks, rather than misrepresentation, the government may not rely upon § 2680(h) to absolve itself of liability.””
    3 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.