Daniel v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
426 F.2d 281 · 1970
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 1994
9 federal appellate · 3 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 23 U.S.C. § 109 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · In re Disbarment of Gately · Mahler 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he ‘discretionary function or duty’ that cannot form a basis for suit under the Tort Claims Act includes more than the initiation of programs and activities. It also includes determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications or schedules of operations. Where there is room for policy judgment and decision there is discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he complaint did not allege that the plans and specifications for Interstate 4 were prepared by the Government; that its construction was performed by the Government or its contractor; or that the highway was owned or controlled by the Government.”
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.