United States v. Catherine Decamp, Truck Insurance Exchange, Intervenor-Appellee’s Empirical Analysis
478 F.2d 1188 · 1973
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 1999 · most notably 18 Cal. 4th 253 - Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998), Miller v. United States (1978)
23 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2402 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein D Stanton · Dalehite v. United States · Scalza v. United States · Corallo 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e also note that the decision ... [not to require a canopy] was not predicated upon considerations of public policy but upon general standards of safety. Accordingly, state tort law can capably measure the reasonableness of the engineer’s judgment in applying professional standards of safety. It is apparent, finally, that the merits of this case are not laden with political questions or other elements suggesting nonjusticiability. In fact, the type of decision assailed is frequently subjected to judicial scrutiny.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(b) . . . 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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In California a private person would assume no tort duty by reaching this conclusion [not to equip tractors with canopies] and the government engineer cannot be held to a higher standard.” 478 F.2d at 1193 .”
2 later decisions 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.