Shannon v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
417 F.2d 256 · 1969
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Stribling v. United States (1969), Florida East Coast Railway Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Third Party Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, and Troup Bros., Inc., Third Party (1975)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 5 U.S.C. § 8701 (Federal Employees Life Insurance Improvement Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 8715
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Barnes v. United States · Brinson v. Brinson · Johnson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We conclude that the district court erred in its premise that once the government has purchased group insurance for the serviceman it has discharged all obligation to him under the Act. *x* *x* *x- This suit is not under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Jurisdiction over the United States depends on the consent to suit in § 775. The deep involvement of the government in this group insurance program, its control over the program, the payment to it of administrative costs, the escheat to it of unclaimed proceeds, and the other factors described above, particularly the manner in which the program is keyed to specialized needs and requirements of military service, cause the government to be much more than a routine employer making available to its employees the benefits of group coverage. Nevertheless, we conclude that the governmental involvement, even of this depth and scope, does not necessarily carry with it plenary consent to be sued in a non-tort action for damages at the behest of any claimant who has been denied group insurance proceeds. Section 775 is neither so broad as appellant would have it nor as narrow as the government would have it.” Shannon v. United States, supra at 259, 261 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ctions at law or in equity to recover on the policy, in which there is not alleged any breach of any obligation undertaken by the United States, should be brought against the insurer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The government discharged its obligation under the statute and regulations of receiving a designation of beneficiary, which was ‘the order of precedence set forth in the law.’ That designation remained unchanged. By its ‘Interim’ Report of Casualty the government communicated to Prudential [the insurer under the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Act] the beneficiary designation. But in addition it told the insurer what identified person occupied the top rung on the ladder of precedence, i. e., who was the wife. Neither the face of the statute nor the regulations required the government to do this. If the government did so in this instance only accidently or negligently, or did so under a contract or modus operandi by which it supplies data identifying those who occupy the order of precedence to insurers who are not to rely thereon but only to use it at their peril, then we perceive no duty on the government. However, an undertaking by the government to supply data identifying those who occupy the order of precedence on which identity the insurer is to rely, is wholly consistent with the function of an employer under a group insurance program and more particularly of the Armed Services as an employer, as custodian of information vital to the serviceman and his family, and as the agency of our government peculiarly desirous of prompt payment of death benefits. If there is such an undertaking the government may be sued therefor under § 775.” Id. at 262.”
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.