Boudreau v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
53 F.3d 81 · 1995
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably 27 F. Supp. 2d 15 - Pitney Bowes Inc. v. United States Postal Service (1998), California v. United States (2001)
9 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 16 U.S.C. § 460D · 33 U.S.C. § 702C
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Watson v. United States · United States v. James · FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he word “management” appears nowhere in the relevant provision of § 702c_ It is gleaned from the following passage in James : [Plaintiffs] also argue, in the alternative, that even if 702c is intended to grant immunity in connection with flood control projects, the Federal government is not entitled to immunity here because their injuries arose from Government employees’ alleged mismanagement of recreational activities wholly unrelated to flood control. In support of this argument they point to a “fundamental principle of immunity” that the “sphere or protected activity must be narrowly limited by the purpose for which the immunity was granted.” We think, however, that the manner in which to convey warnings, including the negligent failure to do so, is part of the “management” of a flood, control project. And as noted in n. 7, supra, the Court of Appeals found that the release of waters at the [accident sites] was clearly related to flood control. [478 U.S.] at 609-610, 106 S.Ct. at 3123-24 (emphasis added). Neither this passage nor the facts of James support the conclusion that a nexus between the damage and flooding has been jettisoned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Although causation is disputed, the conditions on the Lake and the location of Boudreau's vessel certainly made an accident of this nature more probable. For example not only did the accident occur at a flood control lake, it occurred in an area that would not have been submerged without flood control. In this regard, the Government maintains that Bou-dreau’s anchor was caught in trees beneath the surface of the lake — trees submerged only as the result of flood control. Furthermore, it is evident from the record that the waves, high winds, and other conditions on the lake could have contributed to the accident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). 13 The Court of Federal Claims found such cases, and James in particular, to be instructive in determining if the grant of immunity under 702c extends to actions for breach of contract. Citing in James the discussion of the legislative history of the Flood Control Act, the court concluded that breach of contract claims are within the ambit of 702c because the legislative history”
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.