United States v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
99 federal appellate · 69 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 347 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Jackson v. Kotter (2008), Liranzo v. United States (2012)
99 federal appellate · 69 district · 34 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedOlson v. United States (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Indian Towing Company v. United States · Rayonier Incorporated v. United States a Arnhold · Myers v. United States · Dorking Genetics v. United States · Doggett v. United States
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 347 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In this case, two injured mine workers (and a spouse) have sued the United States claiming that the negligence of federal mine inspectors helped bring about a serious accident at an Arizona mine. The Federal District Court dismissed the lawsuit in part upon the ground that their allegations were insuf ficient to show that Arizona law would impose liability upon a private person in similar circumstances. The Ninth Circuit, in a brief per curiam opinion, reversed this determination. It reasoned from two premises. First, where “ ‘unique governmental functions’ ” are at issue, the Act waives sovereign immunity if “ ‘a state or municipal entity would be [subject to liability] under the law [¶]... ] where the activity occurred.’ ” Second, federal mine inspections being regulatory in nature are such “ ‘unique governmental functions,’ ” since “there is no private-sector analogue for mine inspections.” The Circuit then held that Arizona law would make “state and municipal entities” liable in the circumstances alleged; hence the FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity.”
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.