Bramer v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.2d 1141 · 1979
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Ray v. Schneider (1988), Nelson v. United States (1980)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 2051 · 42 U.S.C. § 2501
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · United States v. Orleans · Scalza v. United States · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Logue 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[It is a] well-established rule that neither the reservation of a right to inspect and approve of the work of an independent contractor nor actual inspection, even if allegedly negligent, alone subjects the government to liability.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize as likely to create during its progress a peculiar risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care to take such precautions, even though the employer has provided for such precautions in the contract or otherwise.” 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 395, Section 416.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The government pays the premium for Bramer’s Workmen’s Compensation coverage just as it pays the premium for employees of the University. Thus, the government does not ‘escape liability.’ Here too, there seems no valid reason why we should not apply the second rationale, which ‘indicates [that] an employer’s liability to employees of independent contractors should not be greater than the employer’s liability to his own employees.’ ” 595 F.2d at 1145-46 (citations omitted).”
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.