Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 590 F.2d 263 - Taylor v. United States

Taylor v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

590 F.2d 263 · 1979

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
January 1999
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 1999

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

130197919801990decided

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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 33 U.S.C. § 701 · 33 U.S.C. § 702C

Relies on United States v. Cress · Alton v. Alton · United States v. Mississippi · National Mfg. Co. v. United States · Lunsford 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We can see no rational distinction between floodwaters and backwaters that would lead to a different result in this case. The most favorable chain of events that we can presume is that the water already impounded in Lake Sakakawea was backwater. The rains of June were negligently impounded beyond the maximum operating level, which pushed the previously existing backwater onto the Taylors’ property. To presume such a distinction is difficult enough, but it still does not escape the breadth of section 702c immunity. As we stated in National Mfg. Co. v. United States supra, . . . section 702c “bars liability for damages that result (even indirectly) ‘from’ floods.” Thus, even if it was backwater that damaged the Taylors’ property, and even if section 702c would not cover “backwater” per se, the backwater was pushed onto the Taylors’ property “in whole or in part from unusual or extraordinary climatic conditions.” Stover v. United States, supra.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]hen Congress entered upon flood control on the great scale contemplated by the [Flood Control] Acts it safeguarded the United States against liability of any kind for damage from or by floods or flood waters in the broadest and most emphatic language. * * * ****** Undoubtedly that absolute freedom of the government from liability for flood damages is and has been a factor of the greatest importance in the extent to which Congress has been and is willing to make appropriations for flood control and to engage in costly undertakings to reduce flood damages.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “over a period of time the Garrison Dam obstructed sufficient water such that Lake Sakakawea was filled close to or at the maximum level. When the rains in June came, the additional water was impounded in the lake, took on the identity of backwater as opposed to floodwater, and increased the level to the point where backwater settled upon the Taylors’ property.”
    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.