Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 1023 · 1978
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2015 · most notably Finley v. United States (1989), State of Louisiana Guste v. M/v Testbank M/s (1985)
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 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)
Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint · Wolff v. McDonnell · Kelly v. Smith
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the basis for denial of recovery in the cases following Robins (is the law's traditional reluctance) to recognize claims based solely on harm to the interest in contractual relations or business expectancy”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The law has traditionally been reluctant to recognize claims based solely on harm to the interest in contractual relations or business expectancy____ In consequence, as stated in Kaiser Aluminum, a plaintiff may not recover for interference with his contractual relations unless he shows that the interference was intentional or knowing. While the wisdom of that traditional reluctance is open to debate, the rule based upon it is too well-settled to be overturned by a panel of this court.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[r]ephrasing the claim as a public nuisance claim does not change its essential character.”
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.