Hicks v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
511 F.2d 407 · 1975
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 31 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Durflinger v. Artiles (1983), United States v. Mandel (1979)
41 federal appellate · 31 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2674
Relies on Drope v. Missouri · United States v. Neustadt · Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company v. Kellogg · Greenwood v. United States · Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A claim of negligence must be considered in light of the elusive qualities of mental disorders and the difficulty of analyzing and evaluating them. Exactitude is often impossible. The Supreme Court has recently noted “the uncertainty of diagnosis in this field and the tentativeness of professional judgment.” Error and uncertainty considered alone must often be accepted without labeling them negligence. (Citations omitted.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[ T]he harm suffered must be found to be a foreseeable consequence of the act complained of This does not mean, of course, that the precise events which occurred could, themselves, have been foreseen as they actually occurred; only that the events were within the scope of the foreseeable risk. ‘... it must appear that the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence or wrongful act, and that it ought to have been foreseen in the light of the attending circumstances.’ (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The act of a third person in committing an intentional tort or crime is a superseding cause of harm to another resulting therefrom although the actor’s negligent conduct created a situation which afforded an opportunity to the third person to commit such a tort or crime, unless the actor at the time of his negligent conduct realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime.”
2 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.