Rodriguez v. Handy’s Empirical Analysis
873 F.2d 814 · 1989
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2024
13 federal appellate · 5 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. § 2412 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2676 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Carlson v. Green · Lord Electric Co. v. United States
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Tjhe price of obtaining an FTCA judgment against the United States based on a given incident is the loss of all claims arising from that incident against the United States' agents: "The moment judgment was entered against the government, then by virtue of section 2676, [the individual agent] was no longer answerable to [the plaintiff] for damages.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plaintiffs contend that § 2676 is an affirmative defense which the individual defendants waived by failing to affirmatively plead it. The flaw in this argument is that § 2676 is applicable only after a plaintiff obtains a judgment against the United States. In this case the judgment against the United States was entered at the same time as the judgment against the individual. Therefore, the individual defendants could not have plead § 2676 as an affirmative defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The acceptance by the claimant of any such award, compromise, or settlement shall be final and conclusive on the claimant, and shall constitute a complete releáse of any claim against the United States and against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to that claim, by reason of the same subject matter.””
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.