Mitchell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 466 · 1986
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Kennewick Irrigation District v. United States (1989), Gasho v. United States (1994)
37 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · United States v. Orleans · Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Holloman v. Watt
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny claim ... based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The BPA [Bonneville Power Administration] did not negligently install or maintain warning devices, but rather, affirmatively decided to adopt the FAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration] policy of not marking ground wires below 500 feet. The Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1421 , authorized the FAA to regulate air safety. The BPA does not have similar statutory authorization and therefore chose to rely on FAA standards regarding whether to mark ground wires. Its choice to leave air space safety standards to be set chiefly by the FAA was “grounded in social, economic, and political policy.” Varig Airlines, [ 467 U.S. at 814 ], 104 S.Ct. at 2765 . Our review of this decision would encroach upon the agency’s decision-making process; the exception therefore applies and we are without jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exemption applies in a given case. ... Thus, the basic inquiry concerning the application of the discretionary function exemption is whether the challenged acts of a government employee — whatever his or her rank — are of the nature and quality that Congress intended to shield from tort liability.”
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.