Portmann v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
674 F.2d 1155 · 1982
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2013 · most notably Franchise Tax Board of California v. United States Postal Service (1984), United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc. (1985)
73 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 · 28 U.S.C. § 1339 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 39 U.S.C. § 101 · 39 U.S.C. § 401 · 39 U.S.C. § 409 · 39 U.S.C. § 410
Relies on Federal Crop Ins Corporation v. Merrill · Indian Towing Company v. United States · Schweiker v. Hansen · Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner · Lombard v. Marcera
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the party to be estopped must know the facts. Second, this party must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting estoppel has a right to believe it is so intended. Third, the party asserting estoppel must have been ignorant of the facts. Finally, the party asserting estoppel must reasonably rely on the other’s conduct to his substantial injury.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes a litigant from asserting a claim or defense which might otherwise be available to him against another party who has detrimentally altered her position in reliance on the former's misrepresentation or failure to disclose some material fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“—the type of government activity being pursued; —the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s reliance; —the potential danger of undermining important federal interests; and —the risk of a severe depletion of the public fisc.”
2 later decisions 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.