Knapp v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
844 F.2d 376 · 1988
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2024
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2672 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675
Relies on Blasius v. United States · Adams v. United States · Gaf Corporation v. United States Keene Corporation · Lunsford v. United States · Warren v. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages ... unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We find the relevant statutes and their legislative histories reveal that Congress did not intend to treat regulations promulgated pursuant to section 2672 as jurisdictional prerequisites under section 2675(a).... The regulations in question [sections 14.2-14.3] were promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to this authority [section 2672]. Nothing in this language suggests that these regulations are to be applied jurisdictionally under section 2675(a). If Congress intended to authorize the promulgation of jurisdictional regulations, it would have created that authority directly. Congress has never delegated such authority under section 2675(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because the purpose of § 2675 is to inform the relevant agency of the circumstances of the accident so that it may investigate the claim and fairly respond by settlement or by defense, the notice requirement is met 'if the claimant (1) gives the agency written notice of his or her claim sufficient to enable the agency to investigate and (2) places a value on his or her claim’”
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.