Narramore v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
852 F.2d 485 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably United States Lower Elwha Band of S'Klallams v. Lummi Indian Tribe (2000), In the Matter of West Texas Marketing Corporation v. Walter Kellogg--Trustee
16 federal appellate ·
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. § 2409A · 33 U.S.C. § 702C
Relies on Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission · Darring v. Kincheloe · Del Madera Properties v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc. · West Virginia Oil & Gas Co. v. George E. Breece Lumber Co. · Webb v. Heckler
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“construe a judgment so as to give effect to the intention of the issuing court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is impossible to compute filling frequencies or flood routing studies through a reservoir behind a dam unless a fixed plan of releases from the dam is used. All of the expert testimony [at the Nar-ramore condemnation trial] was based upon filling frequencies and routing studies prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers which used Plan A as the fixed operational discharge of the Painted Rock Dam. This was a tacit, underlying assumption of all experts, be they hydrologists, appraisers or otherwise. ... [P]rior to 1966 it was not considered by anyone that Plan A discharge would cause any problems downstream. In fact it was assumed that the downstream channel would be able to handle Plan A discharges and that this would be the manner of operation of the dam.”
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.