Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 683 F.2d 261 - Laswell v. Brown

Laswell v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

683 F.2d 261 · 1982

Citation profile

111
cited by 111 later decisions
4
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

58 federal appellate · 16 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Martinez v. Winner (1985), Hagerty v. L & L Marine Services, Inc. (1986)

58 federal appellate · 16 district · 4 state decisions

6301982199020002010decided

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. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Butz v. Economou

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

  1. “In a series of decisions now known as the Feres doctrine, the Supreme Court established a judicially created exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the FTCA, holding that the United States 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 military service.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The accident that caused Private Miller’s death occurred on June 23, 1977. On that day and at all relevant times he was a member of the United States Army stationed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. On June 23 Private Miller was present and accounted for. After normal duty hours, with the knowledge and permission of his superior officers, he was employed for part-time work by one George Rodman, a supervisor for Northside-Danzi Construction Co. The work was done on the post and consisted of putting up scaffolding poles for on-base residential housing. Miller was not on leave or on pass, and could have been called to perform military duties at any time. The work had been going on for some time after normal duty hours each day. Plaintiffs claim that Private Miller’s death occurred when an aluminum ladder with which he was working came in contact with an uninsulated electric wire owned and controlled by the Department of the Army. They allege a number of particulars in which the United States (presumably acting through Miller’s commanding officer) was negligent, including, for example, the failure to de-energize the electric line in question.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In [United States v.] Brown, there was an affirmative negligent action after discharge — the misuse of the tourniquet. In the case at bar and in Thornwell [v. United States, 471 F.Supp. 344 (D.D.C.1979)], the wrongful act [exposure to radiation] occurred while the plaintiff was a member of the armed forces. It is only the government’s failure to remedy or, with medical treatment, to limit the damage inflicted while the plaintiff was in the service that leads to a claim for relief.”
    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.