Taylor v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 1428 · 1987
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 12 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Taylor v. United States (1988), Reilly v. United States (1988)
31 federal appellate · 12 district · 12 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2674
Relies on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · Gibbons v. Ogden · Dillon v. Legg · Lawrence v. United States · Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In any action for injury against a health care provider based on professional negligence, the injured plaintiff shall be entitled to recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement and other nonpecuniary damage. (b) In no action shall the amount of damages for non-economic losses exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he United States shall be liable ... in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Other circuits considering this question have concluded that [state medical] liability limitations [statutes] * * * apply to the United States, even though the statutes purport to apply only to state-licensed health care providers. See Lucas v. United States, 807 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir.1986); see also Scheib v. Florida Sanitarium and Benevolent Ass’n, 759 F.2d 859, 863-64 (11th Cir.1985). # * Jj« $ Jjc $ The only reason that Letterman Army Hospital and its staff are not licensed under California law is that California lacks power to require licensing of federal health care providers and physicians. The United States has, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2), essentially deemed [government hospitals] and [their] staff fit to provide health care services in California. To hold that [California’s medical liability limitation statute] does not apply to the United States because the United States is exempt from state licensing requirements would contravene Congress’ directive that the United States “shall be liable ... in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances____” 28 U.S.C. § 2674 . Accordingly, [California’s medical liability limitation statute] applies to [plaintiff’s] action against the United States for damages arising out of negligent treatment of her husband.”
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.