Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 557 F.2d 735 - Sheila M. Jackson v. Paul A. Kelly

Sheila M. Jackson v. Paul A. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis

557 F.2d 735 · 1977

Citation profile

126
cited by 126 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

66 federal appellate · 13 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 126 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill (1988), United States v. Smith (1991)

66 federal appellate · 13 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 states

91019771980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Wood v. Strickland · Feres v. United States · Barr v. Matteo · United States v. Brown

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

  1. “`Generally speaking, a duty is discretionary if it involves judgment, planning, or policy decisions. It is not discretionary [ i.e., ministerial] if it involves enforcement or administration of a mandatory duty at the operational level, even if professional expert evaluation is required.'”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]t is clear defendant’s duty in treating plaintiff was non-discretionary. He did not engage in planning or policy-making, but merely attempted to carry out the ministerial duty of caring for plaintiff in a reasonable manner as he was obliged to do as an Air Force physician. Plaintiff’s complaint merely charges the defendant with the negligent practice of medicine; it does not ask the district court to review a federal health policy decision made by defendant. We recognize that medical treatment involves judgment and discretion. This does not resolve the matter, however, because medical treatment by a government doctor does not necessarily involve governmental discretion.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]e should not and do not suppose that Congress intended to enact unnecessary statutes.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.