491 F. Supp. 466 - Morici Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 204 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 33 U.S.C. § 701A · 33 U.S.C. § 701E · 33 U.S.C. § 702C · 42 U.S.C. § 4121
Relies on Cannon v. University of Chicago · United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co. · Warner v. Goltra · United States v. Kansas City Life Insurance · Alton v. Alton
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Beginning on or about December 1, 1973, and continuing through April, 1974, defendant, its agents and employees operated the [Central Valley] Project Works negligently, without due or reasonable care, so as to establish and maintain the flow in the Sacramento River above and adjacent to Princeton Ranch [plaintiff’s property] at such high elevations as to cause water in large amounts to seep from the Sacramento River into Princeton Ranch. The seepage was the natural and predictable result of the high elevations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“from the presence of flood waters in the Sacramento River which derive from a federal flood control project.”
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.