Black v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
441 F.2d 741 · 1971
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Moorhead v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc. (1987), Tinkler v. United States ex rel. Federal Aviation Administration (1992)
20 federal appellate · 7 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 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Sanders v. Leech · United States v. Schultetus · Weissman v. PRASHKER · Home Gas & Fuel Co. v. Mississippi Tank Co.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is first of all up to the pilot to determine whether dangerous weather conditions prevail along his intended route. He must stay on the alert in the course of his flight. He must listen and give heed to the broadcasts of weather reports that could endanger him and his passengers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Good, even fundamental, flying practice dictated the avoidance of the storm front that of a certainty loomed ahead of the pilot. He should have altered or reversed his course, or better still have landed at the nearest suitable airport.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When the pilot saw the storm he had to make a decision either to proceed, to alter or reverse his course, or to land. His decision was to proceed. From then on can it be said that the failure of the operator almost two hours earlier to warn him of Sigmet Charlie 2 [the storm] proximately contributed to that decision? We think not.” 441 F.2d at 745 . “Appellant’s negligence had ‘so far spent itself as to be too small for [the] law’s notice,’ and was so completely superseded by that of the pilot that it was no longer a material element contributing to the tragic results that ensued. In our judgment the findings of the lower court on the issue of proximate cause are clearly erroneous.” 441 F.2d at 746 .”
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.