Heathcoat v. Potts’s Empirical Analysis
790 F.2d 1540 · 1986
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2015
10 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 5 U.S.C. § 8116
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Forsyth v. Kleindienst · Alan McSurely v. John L. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County, Kentucky · Evans v. Wh Dillahunty E · George G. Allman v. W. H. Hanley
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Heathcoat I "), the defendants argued (1) that, as federal government employees exercising discretionary functions and acting within the outer perimeters of their lines of duty, they were entitled to absolute immunity from state law tort actions; (2) that a release in the decedent's personal services contract barred the plaintiff's claims; and (3) that, because the defendants were acting as alter egos or instrumentalities of the TVA in fulfilling the duties that the TVA owed the decedent, the exclusive remedy provisions of the Federal Employees Compensation Act ("FECA”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.