Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 742 F.2d 484 - Dyniewicz v. United States

Dyniewicz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

742 F.2d 484 · 1984

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
2
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Gibson v. United States (1986), United States v. Claiborne (1986)

63 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions

3501984199020002010decided

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. § 2675

Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho · Jaffke v. Dunham · Warren v. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

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

  1. “Discovery of the cause of one's injury, however, does not mean knowing who is responsible for it.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Appellants knew both the fact of injury and its immediate physical cause, the flooded highway, when the bodies of Mr. and Mrs. Dyniewicz were found. The cause of action accrued at that time. Their ignorance of the involvement of United States employees is irrelevant.”
    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.