Fisher Bros Sales Inc 93-1182 v. United States Balmaceda’s Empirical Analysis
46 F.3d 279 · 1995
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration (2005), Gotha v. United States (1997)
12 federal appellate · 11 district ·
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 21 U.S.C. § 375 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on United States v. Gaubert · Berkovitz v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Indian Towing Company v. United States · United States v. Neustadt
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny claim ... based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he discretionary function exception is designed to protect policy making by the politically accountable branches of government from interference in the form of “second-guessing” by the judiciary-second guessing the result of which burdens the public fisc and the prospect of which skews the decision making process of the executive and legislative policymakers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, ..., for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
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.