Harten v. Coons’s Empirical Analysis
502 F.2d 1363 · 1974
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Stanley v. Central Intelligence Agency (1981), In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation (1980)
28 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Feres v. United States · United States v. Brown · Brooks v. United States · School Board of Richmond v. State Board of Education · Fuentes v. Shevin
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This argument is erroneous for Feres does not limit its holding to injuries occurring in the course of activity incident to service. It also immunizes the Government for injuries arising out of activity incident to service. We think that Feres focuses not upon when the injury or when the claim becomes actionable, but rather the time of, and the circumstances surrounding the negligent act____ The focus is thus upon when and how the negligent act occurs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is obvious that the injured man could not have been admitted, and would not have been admitted, to the Naval Hospital except for his military status. He was there treated by Naval medical personnel solely because of that status. It inescapably follows that 'whatever happened to him in that hospital and during the course of that treatment had to be ‘in the course of activity incident to service.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a claimant is on leave or on inactive status at the time of the injury, or if the injury is not the product of a military relationship, suit under the Act may be allowed. On the other hand, when a serviceman on active duty sustains an injury stemming from the military relationship, courts have consistently denied recovery under the Act.”
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.