Wright v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
717 F.2d 254 · 1983
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Mathirampuzha v. Potter (2008), Spinelli v. Goss (2006)
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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. § 2675 · 5 U.S.C. § 8101 (Attendant Allowance Adjustment Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 8102 · 5 U.S.C. § 8116 · 5 U.S.C. § 8128 · 5 U.S.C. § 8145
Relies on O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc. · New York State Department of Social Services v. Dublino · Cudahy Packing Co of Nebraska v. Parramore · United States v. Demko · Duprey v. Shane
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An employer may become a third person, vulnerable to tort suit by an employee, if — and only if — he possesses a second persona so completely independent from and unrelated to his status as employer that by established standards the law recognizes it as a separate legal person.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact; and (2) not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or otherwise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An employer may become a third person, vulnerable to tort suit by an employee, if— and only if—he possesses a second persona so completely unrelated to his status as employer that by established standards the law recognizes it as a separate legal person”. ... The dual capacity doctrine does not destroy the theoretical superstructure of workmen’s compensation. ... The dual capacity doctrine merely allows the employee to sue his employer where the employer-employee relationship does not exist because the employer is acting in a second persona unrelated to his status as employer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Quinn v. DiPietro
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.