Brown v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
790 F.2d 199 · 1986
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably McMellon v. United States (2004), Jd Havinga v. Crowley Towing and Transportation Company Jd Havinga (1994)
16 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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. § 2680
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Indian Towing Company v. United States · Morris v. Gressette · Boykin v. Alabama
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the Weather Service is a particularly unfortunate area in which to establish a duty of judicially reviewable due care. A weather forecast is a classic example of a prediction of indeterminate reliability, and a place peculiarly open to debatable decisions, including the desirable degree of investment of government funds and other resources. Weather predictions fail on frequent occasions. If in only a small proportion parties suffering in conse quence succeeded in producing an expert who could persuade a judge, as here, that the government should have done better, the burden on the fisc [sic] would be both unlimited and intolerable....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Indian Towing does not invite, as plaintiffs would have it, an assessment of the appropriateness of the particular navigational aid established; liability was not imposed in that case because a more powerful light or taller lighthouse would have been a better warning of the rocks marked by the lighthouse, but rather because the negligent non-functioning of the charted lighthouse misled plaintiff to his detriment. As we have stated previously, the principle laid down in Indian Towing ... (is) that the government must not mislead, and must not induce reliance upon a belief that it is providing something which, in fact, it is not providing. Here there was no such inducement. The buoy, of a standard type used by the Coast Guard, was in actuality located precisely as represented on the [ ] Chart [ ]. The wreck was marked exactly as it was purported to be, and whether or not that marking is deemed the best suitable from a safety point of view, the United States is not hable under Indian Towing .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the government created the danger after the critical discretionary decision had been made.”
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.