George S. Bailey v. Agusto G. Dequevedo and K. E. Van Buskirk’s Empirical Analysis
375 F.2d 72 · 1967
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1990 · most notably Stanley v. Central Intelligence Agency (1981), In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation (1980)
35 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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 Feres v. United States · United States v. Brown · E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Maloney · Bailey v. Buskirk
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Fjirst, the relationship between the Government and members of its Armed Forces is “ ‘distinctively federal in character,’ ” . .; it would make little sense to have the Government’s liability to members of the Armed Services dependent on the fortuity of where the soldier happened to be stationed at the time of the injury. Second, the Veterans’ Benefits Act establishes, as a substitute for tort liability, a statutory “no fault” compensation scheme which provides generous pensions to injured servicemen, without regard to any negligence attributable to the Government. A third factor [is] “[t]he peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors, the effects of the maintenance of such suits on discipline, and the extreme results that might obtain if suits under the Tort Claims Act were allowed for negligent orders given or negligent acts committed in the course of military duty . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are satisfied that while the army medical corps performs mostly a function of service, it nevertheless has a command function over all officers and enlisted men who are admitted to its facilities during the period of their admission. The operations were performed by the medical officers in line of duty. It is not yet within the American legal concept that one soldier may sue another for negligent acts performed in the line of duty. * * * ” [emphasis added] Id. at 298 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We know of no American law which ever has permitted a soldier to recover for negligence, against either his superior officers or the government he is serving. 10 * * * # * *”
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.