Augustine v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
704 F.2d 1074 · 1983
Citation profile
100 federal appellate · 50 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 298 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer (2004), Roberts v. Corrothers (1987)
100 federal appellate · 50 district · 10 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 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2674
Relies on United States v. Kubrick · Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp. · Hungerford v. United States · Davis v. United States
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 298 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he injury is the development of the problem into a more serious condition which poses greater danger to the patient or which requires more extensive treatment. In this type of case, it is only when the patient becomes aware or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have become aware of the development of a pre-existing problem into a more serious condition that his cause of action can be said to have accrued.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“However, where the jurisdictional issue and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of factual issues going to the merits, the jurisdictional determination should await a determination of the relevant facts on either a motion going to the merits or at trial.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n ruling on a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, the district court is ordinarily free to hear evidence regarding jurisdiction and to rule on that issue prior to trial, resolving factual disputes where necessary.”
5 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.