Budden v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
8 F.3d 1278 · 1993
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Brewster v. Derwinski · Parham v. Cortese · Mueller v. Allen · Ingham v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district court could find on this record, however, that Budden’s subsequent negligent conduct constituted an intervening cause which rendered the negligent briefing a remote rather than proximate cause of the accident. While Geranis knew or should have known that the pilot would rely on the weather information in taking off on the flight, the briefer was not duty bound to anticipate that Budden would continue the mission despite weather conditions which mandated aborting the flight. Thus, the district court’s proximate cause determination rests on the proposition that Budden’s conduct broke the causal connection between Geranis’ breach of duty and the crash.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Geranis’ breach of duty meets the first two prongs of the proximate cause test.... First, we should assume that if Budden had received a complete weather briefing, he would not have attempted the flight. This result derives from the presumption that the negligence of a deceased person must be proved, and absent such proof, the deceased is assumed to have exercised due care. Neff v. United States, 420 F.2d 115 , 117 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1969); Stauffer v. School Dist. of Tecumseh, [ 238 Neb. 594 ] 473 N.W.2d 392 , 395 (1991). Second, although not probable in a statistical sense, a deadly crash is a foreseeable result of providing an inaccurate weather forecast. 3”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“). 46 A factual finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is”
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.