Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 882 F.2d 306 - Hurst v. United States

Hurst v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

882 F.2d 306 · 1989

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
4
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably McKnight ex rel. Ludwig v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (1994), Arcoren v. United States (1991)

31 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

34019891990200020102020decided

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 · 33 U.S.C. § 1344

Relies on Dalehite v. United States · Berkovitz v. United States · Indian Towing Company v. United States · Finley v. United States · Butz v. Hein

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A trial court should exclude an expert opinion only if it is so fundamentally unsupported that it cannot help the factfinder.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “are sufficient facts already in evidence or disclosed by the witness” to take his”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “By its express terms, section 326.2(a) at that time imposed upon the Corps a nondiscretion-ary duty to issue a prohibitory order to Hight if the district engineer discovered a permit violation while the jetty project was still in progress. The term 'shall immediately’ stressed the urgency and mandatory nature of stopping the unauthorized activity before further violations occurred.... Ample evidence indicates that Corps employees knew of the permit violations but took no action as re-by the regulation.”
    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.