Jones v. Newton’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.2d 1316 · 1985
Citation profile
20 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District (1994), Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp. (1996)
20 federal appellate ·
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 10 U.S.C. § 1089 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1442A · 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Relies on Inc v. Miller Brewing Company · Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, Inc. v. Suleski · Allied Chemical Corp. v. Mackay · Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc. · Baker v. Barber
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he meaning of [Section 1089(a) ] is clear: for the causes designated, a suit against the United States is the only remedy against the physician. When suit falls within these designated causes and there can be no recovery against the United States, the plaintiff has reached the end of the line.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) Upon a certification by the Attorney General that any person described in subsection (a) was acting in the scope of such person’s duties or employment at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose, any such civil action or proceeding commenced in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States of the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending and the proceeding deemed a tort action brought against the United States under the provisions of title 28 and all references thereto. Should a United States district court determine on a hearing on a motion to remand held before a trial on the merits that the case so removed is one in which a remedy by suit within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section is not available against the United States, the case shall be remanded to the State court.”
2 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.