Arevalo v. Woods’s Empirical Analysis
811 F.2d 487 · 1987
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Love v. United States (1989), Thomas v. Oldham (1995)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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. § 2676
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Davis v. Passman · Carlson v. Green · Alder v. United States · Easton v. United States
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Tjhe price of obtaining an FTCA judgment against the United States based on a given incident is the loss of all claims arising from that incident against the United States' agents: "The moment judgment was entered against the government, then by virtue of section 2676, [the individual agent] was no longer answerable to [the plaintiff] for damages.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The judgment in an [FTCA] action ... shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.”
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.