Baker v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
817 F.2d 560 · 1987
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Berkovitz v. United States (1988), Makarova v. United States (2000)
39 federal appellate · 4 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 20 U.S.C. § 3508 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 262 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009)
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · United States v. Orleans · Alder v. United States · New York v. Ferber
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government ... or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function applies in a given case____ [T]he basic inquiry concerning the application of the discretionary function exception is whether the challenged acts of a Government employee — whatever his or her rank — are of the nature and quality that Congress intended to shield from tort liability.”
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.