Nadler v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 5 U.S.C. § 8101 (Attendant Allowance Adjustment Act)
Relies on United States v. Fausto · Block v. Community Nutrition Institute · Westfall v. Erwin · Sowell v. American Cyanamid Co. · Yalkut v. Gemignani
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provide [F]ederal employees with absolute immunity from liability for common law torts committed within the scope of employment. Congress achieved this purpose by precluding direct actions against [Federal employees. Instead, the plaintiffs “exclusive remedy” is an action against the United States under the FTCA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Certainly, if Congress intended to confine the Act to negligence claims, it would have written the Act in those terms. Moreover, while the legislative history quoted by Plaintiff emphasizes claims for negligence, the sponsor of the bill specifically referred to defamation as one of the torts covered by the Act.”
1 later decision 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.