Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 751 F.2d 303 - McMichael v. United States

McMichael v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

751 F.2d 303 · 1985

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
2
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Loudermill v. Dow Chemical Co. (1988), Aslakson v. United States (1986)

38 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

4201985199020002010decided

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. § 2680

Relies on Dalehite v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Houchins v. KQED, Inc. · Kansas State Bank in Holton v. Citizens Bank of Windsor Jw E

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

  1. “When an agency determines the extent to which it will supervise the safety procedures of private individuals, it is exercising discretionary regulatory authority of the most basic kind.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Thus, the Defense Department inspectors were not called upon to make discretionary regulatory judgments. Rather, they had a number of precise inspections to perform which involved no judgment concerning agency policy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “hires an independent contractor to do extra-dangerous or ultrahazardous work [it] has a duty to exercise reasonable care to see that the contractor takes proper precautions to protect those who might sustain injuiy from the work. This liability may be imposed on the United States as an employer, and it is not vicarious or strict liability, but rather a function of the employer's own negligence.”
    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.