Preston v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 232 · 1979
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Neal v. Bergland (1981), Muniz-Rivera v. United States (2003)
22 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Indian Towing Company v. United States · United States v. Neustadt · Gordon v. United States · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Granza 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not unusual for these and other plaintiffs to describe their cause of action in a way calculated to avoid the misrepresentation exception, but the courts have consistently looked behind the plaintiffs' characterization. On analysis, we think it clear that what plaintiffs are complaining about is an implied misrepresentation. They have alleged that the approval and subsequent auditing in the warehouse by government agencies created an aura that the warehouse was safe, and that they relied to their detriment on this apparent approval by the government agencies.... [T]his amounts to an allegation of misrepresentation by implication.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schneider v. USA“It is therefore necessary to distinguish those causes of action for independent torts that only collaterally involve misrepresentations from those . . . which are fundamentally grounded on the common law tort of misrepresentation. In making these determinations, the courts have followed Neustadt’s distinction between personal injury or property damages arising from negligent performance of operational tasks on the one hand and injury resulting from commercial decisions taken in reliance on governmental misrepresentation on the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues.”
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.