Armstrong v. Vogel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a federal law enforcement officer commits an intentional tort, the victim has two avenues of redress: 1) he may bring a Bivens claim against the individual officer based on the constitutional violation, or 2) he may bring a common law tort action against the United States pursuant to the FTCA. These are separate and distinct causes of action arising out of the same transaction. A decision to sue the government, however, affects the availability of a Bivens action against the federal officer. Although the plaintiff may elect initially to bring his action against either defendant, a judgment against the United States under the FTCA constitutes “a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee ... whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 2676 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Trentadue v. United States · Serra v. Pichardo

2. “as the action plaintiff originally brought under the FTCA. It noted that the damages alleged arose from the same operation and thus originated from the same subject matter as the previous action. The court emphasized that its duty was to look to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Serra v. Pichardo