Robak v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
658 F.2d 471 · 1981
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably 31 Cal. 3d 220 - Turpin v. Sortini (1982), Jackson v. Bumgardner (1986)
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Relies on Roe v. Wade · Becker v. Schwartz · Berman v. Allan · 251 Cal. App. 2d 303 - Custodio v. Bauer · Gleitman v. Cosgrove
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A case like this one is little different from an ordinary medical malpractice action. It involves a failure by a physician to meet a required standard of care, which resulted in specific damages to the plaintiffs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“No attorney shall charge, demand, receive, or collect for services rendered, fees in excess of 25 per centum of any judgment rendered pursuant to section 1346(b) of this title or any settlement made pursuant to section 2677 of this title.... Any attorney who charges, demands, receives, or collects for services rendered in connection with such claim any amount in excess of that allowed under this section, if recovery be had, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Before 1966, the Federal Tort Claims Act provided the district court with discretion to determine the attorneys’ fees to be paid in such actions_ Congress purposefully removed this matter from the discretion of the district court, so long as the fee fell within the section’s guidelines of 25 percent. The contract between the Robaks and their counsel agreed upon a fee of 25 percent, within the statutory limits. The court thus had no choice but to accept this pre-existing arrangement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.