Goff v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
659 F.2d 560 · 1981
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc. (1982), Cardio-Medical Associates, Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester Medical Center (1983)
15 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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)
Relies on United States v. Kubrick · Burnett v. New York Central Railroad · Soriano v. United States · Linkletter v. Walker · Shoup Voting Machine Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well established that the time limitations enacted by Congress in statutes which waive governmental immunity are to be strictly construed in favor of the government. The government yields no more in waiving sovereign immunity than it clearly intends to yield. While it is often recognized that statutes of limitations may be waived or tolled on various equitable considerations when they apply to suits between private individuals (cites omitted), such is not the case in statutes of limitations created by the sovereign when waiving its sovereign immunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is nothing on record to show any improper pressure, misleading tactics, or any other impropriety on the part of the government, nor is there any showing that the district court abused its discretion in granting the dismissal which the plaintiff requested. Firmly established principles require the holding that the district court was correct in finding that it did not have jurisdiction in this refiled case because it was filed after the limitations period had expired.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the fact that a dismissal of an earlier suit was without prejudice does not authorize the bringing of the suit later outside of an otherwise binding limitations period”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Olagues v. Frost
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.