Williams v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
435 F.2d 804 · 1970
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2002 · most notably 80 Wis. 2d 525 - Cords v. Anderson (1977), Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co. (1975)
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 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 Braunfeld v. Gibbons · McWeeney v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Virginian Ry. Co. v. Armentrout · 273 F. Supp. 619 - Brooks 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nor, finally, can we accept plaintiff’s argument that the anticipated future earnings are to be increased by some multiple taken out of the air in the name of future inflation. While plaintiff submitted a number of cases making reference to inflation, most of them are simply rejections of comparisons with past verdicts, on the ground that subsequent, already demonstrated, inflation has made the comparison inapposite. None clearly accept the use of predictions as to future inflation. While we have found a case which may be read as speaking in terms of future inflation, Southern Pac. Co. v. Zehnle, 9 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 453 , and one which must be so regarded, Brooks v. United States, D.S.C., 1967, 273 F.Supp. 619 , both rely exclusively on eases involving inflation already established. Particularly in considering predictions of an accumulated estate, which, if there is inflation, must be adjusted for possibly inflated expenses as well as earnings, we consider such speculation inadmissible. Armentrout v. Virginia Ry., S.D.W.Va., 1947, 72 F.Supp. 997 , rev’d on other grounds, 4 Cir., 166 F.2d 400 ; Hodkinson v. Parker, 1944, 70 S.D. 272 , 16 N.W.2d 924 ; cf. McWeeney v. New York, N.H. & H. R.R., 2 Cir. 1960, 282 F.2d 34, 38 (dictum), cert. denied 364 U.S. 870 , 81 S.Ct. 115 , 5 L.Ed.2d 93 .” Williams v. United States, supra, at p. 807.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.