Unus v. Kane’s Empirical Analysis
565 F.3d 103 · 2009
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Evans v. Chalmers (2012), Brownback v. King (2021)
8 federal appellate · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2676 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Illinois v. Gates · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Hensley v. Eckerhart
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b)(1) The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of this title for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject matter against the employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim or against the estate of such employee. Any other civil action or proceeding for money damages arising out of or relating to the same subject matter against the employee or the employee’s estate is precluded with out regard to when the act or omission occurred. (2) Paragraph (1) does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the Government— (A) which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Litigants frequently face tough choices — choices that rarely come without consequence. In these proceedings, the plaintiffs chose to pursue them claims against the federal agent defendants through Bivens as well as under the FTCA. As such, they risked having a judgment on the FTCA claims operate to bar their Bivens theories.... [T]he district court properly awarded summary judgment to the United States on the FTCA claims. Those claims arose out of the “same subject matter” as the First and Fourth Amendment Bivens subclaims — the execution of the Warrant — by the “employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim,” ie., the federal agent defendants. As such, the court’s summary judgment award on the FTCA claims triggers the judgment bar provision of § 2676, and the plaintiffs’ First and Fourth Amendment Bivens subclaims against the federal agent defendants are thus barred.”
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.