595 F. Supp. 708 - Turner v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2001
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United Gas Improvement Co. v. Continental Oil Co. · Clayton P. Kehoe Towing Co. v. United States · United States v. Faneca · Lambertson v. United States · Howard v. State Department of Highways of Colorado
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That plaintiffs have also asked for damages for negligence on the part of the Government is of no moment. As defendant correctly contends, this is a case dealing exclusively with assault, battery, misrepresentation and/or deceit. One cannot escape these exceptions to the waiver of sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h) by merely labeling the cause of action something which it is not. United States v. Faneca, 332 F.2d 872, 875 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 971 [ 85 S.Ct. 1327 , 14 L.Ed.2d 268 ] (1965); Goodman v. United States, 324 F.Supp. 167, 172 (M.D.Fla.1971), aff'd, 455 F.2d 607 (5th Cir.1971). Furthermore, the United States could only be held liable for negligence if Sgt. Suddth was acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b). Clearly, the Sergeant was acting for purely personal reasons in giving the offending physical examinations. He has no such duty under Army regulations. De pt. of the Army Documents NGR 40-501 p. 2, NGR 600-200 p. 5-18.-5. Thus we find he was acting outside the scope of his employment. See, Mays v. Pico Finance Co., 339 So.2d 382, 385 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1976).”
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.