Ayala v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.3d 607 · 1995
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Olson (2005), Esposito v. United States (2004)
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 29 U.S.C. § 557A · 30 U.S.C. § 801 (Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972) · 30 U.S.C. § 952
Relies on Reiter v. Cooper · Building & Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc. · Rath Packing Co. Creditors' Trust v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Johnson v. Transportation Agency
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.
“in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even if specific behavior is statutorily required of a federal employee, the government is not liable under the FTCA unless state law recognizes a comparable liability for private persons.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]mposing a duty of care on MSHA when it provides technical assistance would, in effect, shift the responsibility for safety away from operators and onto MSHA. Despite plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary, we do not think that MSHA substitutes itself for the mine operator when it provides technical assistance to operators.”
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.