Hoffman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
767 F.2d 1431 · 1985
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 14 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Richardson Ex Rel. Estate of Richardson v. Carnegie Library Restaurant, Inc. (1988), Farley v. Engelken (1987)
27 federal appellate · 14 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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)
Relies on Roe v. Wade · Dandridge v. Williams · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Shapiro v. Thompson · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The record clearly supports a finding that the California Legislature had a ‘plausible reason’ to believe that the limitations on non-economic recovery would limit the rise in malpractice insurance costs.... [T]he Legislature had found that the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance was threatening to curtail the availability of medical care and creating the real possibility that many doctors would practice without insurance, leaving patients who might be injured by such doctors with the prospect of uncollectible judgments.... It was reasonable for the lawmakers to believe that placing a ceiling on non-economic damages would help reduce malpractice insurance premiums.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) In any action for injury against a health care provider based on professional negligence, the injured plaintiff shall be entitled to recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement and other nonpecuniary damage. (b) In no action shall the amount of damages for non-economic losses exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finding that [the cap] does not involve any suspect or quasi-suspect classification, a fundamental right, or a classification requiring a heightened scrutiny, we conclude that the proper level of scrutiny is the rational basis test.”
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.