Nasuti v. Scannell’s Empirical Analysis
792 F.2d 264 · 1986
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2015
13 federal appellate · 4 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 10 U.S.C. § 1089 · 22 U.S.C. § 2702 · 25 U.S.C. § 487 · 25 U.S.C. § 610C · 25 U.S.C. § 642 · 25 U.S.C. § 670 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · Corallo v. United States · Williams v. United States · American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp. · Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of this title for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death, resulting from the operation by any employee of the Government of any motor vehicle while acting within the scope of his office or employment, shall hereafter be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the same subject matter against the employee or his estate whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a United States district court shall be deemed an action against the United States under the provisions of [the Federal Tort Claims Act] and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“But even apart from the bar on review in section 1447(d), we question whether [appellant] would have a right to appeal from the district court's order: ordinarily, an order remanding a case to the state court is considered interlocutory, and does not fall within this court's appellate jurisdiction over the final orders of district courts.”
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.