Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 543 F.2d 657 - Felder v. United States

Felder v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

543 F.2d 657 · 1976

Citation profile

121
cited by 121 later decisions
4
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

80 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Mallis v. Bankers Trust Co. (1983), Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers (1990)

80 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

59019761980199020002010decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 6108

Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Richards v. United States · Indian Towing Company v. United States · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions

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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “. . We note that judgments under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., are reviewed under a federal standard of review rather than under a state standard [citation omitted]. An appellate court can freely review questions of law [citations omitted]. However, questions of fact, whether determined by the judge or a jury, are accorded much more deference, and are only overturned on review when clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). The Supreme Court has described the clearly erroneous standard as meaning: “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” [citations omitted].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(t)he United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, In the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in cases wherein the gross earnings in question are beyond 'the lower or middle reach of the income scale,' and consequently 'the impact of income tax has a significant and substantial effect in the computation of probable future contributions' . . . , both parties should be permitted to introduce evidence of the extent to which future earnings would have been taxed.”
    2 later decisions 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.