Patterson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
856 F.2d 670 · 1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2000
14 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. § 2680 · 30 U.S.C. § 1240
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · Berkovitz v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Cablevision Co. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of America, Inc. · Venturi v. 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“social, economic, [or] political policy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mark Lynn Fortney Esley Douglas Tipton Mary E. Tipton Daniel Webster Harmon Mary Jane Harmon v. United States of America, Envirotech Corporation American Air Filter Company, Inc. Anacon Corp. Southeastern Sprinkler Company, Inc. Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co., Inc. American District Telegraph Co. Milton Roy Company Tate Engineering, Inc. Rexnord, Inc. Drexel Brook Engineering Co. Rubbermaid Commercial Prod., Inc. Unijax, Inc. E.I. Pfaff Co., Inc. Simons Eastern Co. C.P. Roberts Engineering, Inc. Yeargin Construction Co., Inc. Shell Oil Company Devon Chemicals, Inc. Publiker Industries, Inc. Buckeye Cellulose Corp. Sybron Corp. Carter and Crawley, Inc. v. Hercules, Incorporated, Third Party · Fortney“The FAA employees who conducted compliance reviews of the aircraft involved in this case were specifically empowered to make policy judgments regarding the degree of confidence, that might reasonably be placed in a given manufacturer, the need to maximize compliance with FAA regulations, and the efficient allocation of agency resources. In administering the “spot-check” program, these FAA engineers and inspectors necessarily took certain calculated risks, but those risks were encountered for the advancement of a governmental purpose and pursuant to the specific grant of authority in the regulations and operating manuals. Under such circumstances, the FAA’s alleged negligence in failing to check certain specific items in the course of certificating a particular aircraft falls squarely within the discretionary function exception of § 2680(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ajny claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, 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.”
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.