Clark v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
402 F.2d 950 · 1968
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably Hamil v. Bashline (1978), Wilkinson v. Vesey (1972)
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Hicks v. United States · Smith v. Yohe · Corn v. French · Reed v. Church · Gardner v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The district judge, it is true, said, that no expert could testify ‘with any probable degree of certainty’ that earlier action would have saved Mrs. Clark’s kidney, but we know of no court that requires a plaintiff to prove causation to a certainty or even to ‘negative entirely the possibility that the defendant’s conduct was not a cause.’ Prosser, Torts § 41 at 246 (3d ed. 1964). It appears to be settled in Virginia that the question of causation is for the jury with only the admonition that ‘if the proof leaves it equally probable that a bad result may have been due to a cause for which the defendant was not responsible as to a cause for which he was responsible the plaintiff cannot recover.’ Reed v. Church, 175 Va. 284 , 8 S.E.2d 285, 288 (1940). The district court found in the instant case an ‘indicated probability that an earlier operation to repair the ureter may have saved the kidney.’ We think such a finding is clearly adequate under the law of Virginia." 402 F.2d at 953-54 . (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in ac cordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Hicks laid down no new rule of law with respect to either negligence or proximate cause.”
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.