Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 640 F.2d 511 - Ross v. United States

Ross v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

640 F.2d 511 · 1981

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Hagerty v. L & L Marine Services, Inc. (1986), Payton v. United States (1982)

9 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

1801981199020002010decided

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. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675

Relies on Ingham v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Alabama Power Company v. Taylor · Johnson v. United States · American Airlines, Inc. v. United States · Alabama Power Company v. Mosley

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]hen the government undertakes to perform services which would not be required in the absence of specific legislation, it will be liable if these activities are performed negligently.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1550. EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS When you believe an emergency exists or is imminent, select and pursue a course of action which appears to be most appropriate under the circumstances and which most nearly conforms to the instructions in this manual. If you are in doubt that a given situation constitutes a potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency. Note. — Because of the infinite variety of possible situations, specific procedures cannot always be prescribed for every situation which might be considered an emergency. As a rule of thumb, an emergency includes any situation which places an aircraft in danger, i.e., uncertainty, alert, being lost, or in distress. 1551. OBTAINING INFORMATION Obtain enough information to handle the emergency intelligently. Base your decision as to what type of assistance is needed on information and requests received from the pilot because he is authorized by FAR 91 to determine a course of action. 1591. RADAR ASSISTANCE TO VFR AIRCRAFT IN WEATHER DIFFICULTY a. If a VFR aircraft requests radar assistance when it encounters or is about to encounter IFR weather conditions, ask the pilot if he is qualified for and capable of conducting IFR flight. b. If the pilot states he is qualified for and capable of IFR flight, request him to file an IFR flight plan and then issue clearance to destination airport, as appropriate. c. If the pilot states he is not qualified for or not capable of conducting IFR flight, or if he refuses to file an ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In every action grounded upon negligence there are three essential elements to a right of recovery. First, a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; second, a breach of that duty; and third, an injury to plaintiff in consequence of that breach. Elba Wood Products, Inc. v. Brackin, 356 So.2d 119, 122 (Ala.1978).”
    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.