Roberson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
382 F.2d 714 · 1967
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 18 Cal. 4th 604 - Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998), Temporomandibular Joint Implants Products Liability Litigation Temporomandibular Joint Implant Recipients v. The Dow Chemical Company
65 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Indian Towing Company v. United States · Rayonier Incorporated v. United States a Arnhold · MacNeil v. Perkins · Throop v. FE Young and Company · United States v. Page
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 313. Emotional Distress Unintended (1) If the actor unintentionally causes emotional distress to another, he is subject to liability to the other for resulting illness or bodily harm if the actor (a) should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing the distress, . . . and (b) from facts known to him should have realized that the distress, if it were caused, might result in illness of bodily harm.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1.) The actor, in this case the Government, must undertake, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another; (2.) The services so rendered must be of a kind which the actor should recognize as necessary for the protection of third persons [in this case those situated like the plaintiff]; (3.) The actor must fail to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his undertaking; (4.) The failure to exercise reasonable care must result in physical harm to the third persons or their things; and (5.) The actor’s failure to exercise such care must (a) increase the risk of such harm, or (b) the undertaking must have been to perform a duty owed by the other to the third persons, or (c) the harm must be suffered because of the reliance of the other or the third persons upon the undertaking.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Liability to Third Persons for Negligent Performance of Undertaking. One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.”
2 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.