Stanley v. Central Intelligence Agency’s Empirical Analysis
639 F.2d 1146 · 1981
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably United States v. Stanley (1987), Wheeler v. Hurdman (1987)
73 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Foman v. Davis · United States v. Sherwood · Feres v. United States · Dalehite 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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In contrast [to the plaintiff in Parker v. United States ], Stanley was not on a pass and was not tending to purely personal business at the time this alleged injury arose. At the time Stanley was given LSD, he was a Master Sergeant in the Army who had volunteered to participate in an experimental program in lieu of his regular duties. The experiment was conducted on an Army base by and for the benefit of the Army. Thus, the relationship between Stanley and the allegedly negligent individuals stemmed from their official military relationship. Stanley had been informed that he was free to leave the testing program at any time; however, this freedom appears to have been restricted to his returning to his original post at Fort Knox. He did return to his original duties there after he was released from Edgewood and remained in the service for eleven years. At least, therefore, he was subject to ultimate military control throughout the duration of his participation in the program. Stanley was receiving military pay and was promised a letter of commendation for his participation in the program. Clearly his participation in the program was activity incident to his military service despite the fact that he had been given a release from his regular duties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has at least a colorable constitutional claim based on Bivens,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.