Welsh v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
844 F.2d 1239 · 1988
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 9 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Kronisch v. United States (1998), Residential Funding Corporation v. Degeorge Financial Corp., Degeorge Home Alliance, Inc. And Degeorge Capital Corp (2002)
44 federal appellate · 9 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Helvering v. Gowran · Rayonier Incorporated v. United States a Arnhold · 34 Cal. 3d 18 - Williams v. State of California
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[O]ur task [in a diversity case] is to make our best prediction, even in the absence of direct state court precedent, of what the Kentucky Supreme Court would do if it were confronted with this question.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen, as here, a plaintiff is unable to prove an essential element of her case due to the negligent loss or destruction of evidence by an opposing party, and the proof would otherwise be sufficient to survive a directed verdict, it is proper for the trial court to create a rebuttable presumption that establishes the missing elements of the plaintiffs case that could only have been proved by the availability of the missing evidence. The burden thus shifts to the defendant-spoliator to rebut the presumption and disprove the inferred element of plaintiffs prima facie case.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'serves as a penalty, placing the risk of an erroneous judgment on the party that wrongfully created the risk.'”
5 later decisions 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.