Wollman v. Gross’s Empirical Analysis
637 F.2d 544 · 1980
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Osborn v. United States (1990), Page v. United States (1984)
38 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679
Relies on United States v. Kubrick · Urie v. Thompson · Houltin v. United States · Quinton v. United States · Exnicious 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The plaintiff] was aware at the time of the accident that [the defendant] was employed by the ASCS. He was unaware only of the legal significance of this fact. The purpose of the statute of limitations is to require the reasonably diligent presentation of tort claims. This may require a plaintiff to obtain appropriate legal counsel and together with counsel discover the facts and their possible legal ramifications so as to enable plaintiff to bring the suit within a reasonable time.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ompliance with the statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The facts of this case amply demonstrate that a gross injustice has resulted from the court’s rigid application of the statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act. As Judge Adams points out in his dissent to the panel opinion, Congress could not have intended the result now endorsed by four judges of this court. Wollman, injured in a car accident by Gross, diligently pursued his claim with Gross’ insurer, which immediately reimbursed Wollman for damages to his car. Wollman then filed suit for his personal injuries well within the time of the three year state statute of limitations. Neither Wollman nor Gross knew that Wollman’s exclusive remedy was against the United States. Wollman was never informed that Gross was acting within the scope of his governmental duties at the time of the accident. Wollman was literally lulled into a sense of false security by Gross and his insurer who negotiated his claim with him, perhaps in good faith, for over two years. Gross and his insurer, not Wollman, were the ones who slept on their rights. Gross and his insurer did not report the accident to the Government or deliver Wollman’s claim to the Government as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (c) and 28 C.F.R. § 15.1 . Wollman did not learn of the Government’s interest in his suit until Gross filed an amended answer on February 21, 1979, asserting his status as a Government employee.... ... I raise one other question. It is the United States that has intervened in the state court, sub”
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.