Wright v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
568 F.2d 153 · 1977
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 1993 · most notably Miller v. United States (1983), Carley v. Wheeled Coach (1993)
17 federal appellate · 8 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 23 U.S.C. § 208 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 33 U.S.C. § 702C
Relies on Bishop v. Wood · Dalehite v. United States · Richards v. United States · Indian Towing Company v. United States · MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“decision to aid and assist the State of Utah in constructing the bridge and approach ways in this case comes within the discretionary exemption of the [FTCA, and] neither its adoption or implementation of 'plans, specifications, or schedules of operations' for the project gave rise to a viable cause of action....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the majority’s expansive interpretation is made of the exception and the Dalehite references to “plans, specifications or schedules of operations,” then it is hard to imagine an independent similar act by an engineer or other Government employee which would not be immunized from the possibility of relief under the Act____ In my opinion, this is contrary to the intent of the statute, the Dalehite case, and numerous well-reasoned decisions____ Thus, for the exception to apply the acts in question must be steps directed by a planning-level policy decision.... Under the Dalehite test, it is only those plans which involve such policy considerations that are protected by the exception, ... and the “plans" involved here were not shown to have been of that type in any sense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“This is a highly important exception, intended to preclude any possibility that the bill might be construed to authorize suit for damages against the Government growing out of an authorized activity such as a flood-control or irrigation project, where no negligence on the part of any Government agent is shown, and the only ground for suit is the contention that the same conduct by a private individual would be tortious, or that the statute or regulation authorizing the project was invalid.”
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.