United States v. Gaubert’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
878 federal appellate · 735 district · 268 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,518 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit (1993), Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc (1999)
878 federal appellate · 735 district · 268 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGaubert v. United States (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1423 · 12 U.S.C. § 1437 · 12 U.S.C. § 1464 (Consumer Home Mortgage Assistance Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · Berkovitz v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Indian Towing Company v. United States
Cited together with Berkovitz v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Dalehite v. United States · Indian Towing Company v. United States · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
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 3,518 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or 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.”
322 later decisions quote this exact passage“There are obviously discretionary acts performed by a Government agent that are within the scope of his employment but not within the discretionary function exception because these acts cannot be said to be based on the purposes that the regulatory regime seeks to accomplish. If one of the officials involved in this case drove an automobile on a mission connected with his official duties and negligently collided with another car, the exception would not apply. Although driving requires the constant exercise of discretion, the official’s decisions in exercising that discretion can hardly be said to be grounded in regulatory policy.”
36 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“involv[e] an element of judgment or choice.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.