Carr v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
422 F.2d 1007 · 1970
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Konizeski v. Livermore Labs (1987), Hammond v. United States (1986)
29 federal appellate · 8 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 38 U.S.C. § 4110 · 50 U.S.C. § 3935 (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) · 50 U.S.C. App. § 510 · 5 U.S.C. § 8116
Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Shapiro v. Thompson · Bolling v. Sharpe · Korematsu v. United States
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The facts reveal that at the time of the collision Sanchez was operating his own vehicle, returning from procuring change for the use of Annex # 1 of the Non-Commissioned Officers’ Club at Fort Dix, N.J., of which he was in charge. This finding is substantiated by affidavit of Sanchez of April 3, 1975 indicating that he was within the scope of his employment. A verified petition for removal has been executed by Maryanne T. Desmond, Assistant United States Attorney, which certifies that defendant John Sanchez was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident out of which the within suit arose. The concomitant result of this petition is to provide an exclusive remedy against the United States for personal injuries “resulting from the operation by any employee of the Government of any motor vehicle while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2679 (b).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"... The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act was intended to enable persons serving in the armed forces `to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation' without the worries and distractions which are involved in the conduct of litigation. 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 510; e.g., Van Heest v. Veech, 58 N.J. Super. 427, 432 , 156 A.2d 301, 304 (1959). We have found nothing to suggest that Congress was protecting a contrary purpose when it extended the benefits of § 525 to persons who bring actions ` against ' servicemen. Consistent with the statute's broad purpose, therefore, we think that § 525 was intended to promote tranquility in the military by permitting claimants to await the termination of the potential defendant's tour of duty without losing a meritorious claim. (citations omitted)." 422 F.2d at 1012-13 (emphasis in original).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]here is no constitutional requirement that a regulation, in other respects permissible, must reach every class to which it might be applied--that the legislature must be held rigidly to the choice of regulating all or none. * * * It is enough that the present statute strikes at the evil where it is felt and reaches the class of cases where it most frequently occurs.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.