Ramirez v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
567 F.2d 854 · 1977
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Augustine v. United States (1983), Murrey v. United States (1996)
30 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Indian Towing Company v. United States · United States v. Muniz · United States v. Neustadt · 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant · Hungerford 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to ... (h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights....” [emphasis added]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The misrepresentation exclusion presumably protects the United States from liability in those many situations where a private individual relies to .-his economic detriment on the advice of a government official.”); Murrey v. United States, 73 F.3d 1448, 1450-51 (7th Cir. 1996).(”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The creation of strained distinctions to encompass aspects of ordinary medical malpractice within the misrepresentation exception of section 2680(h) is not justified by the language of the statute, by its history, or by Neustadt. The patient who suffers harm from [a physician’s misrepresentation] is the victim of negligent conduct, not of an esoteric form of misrepresentation.”
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.