Smith v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
885 F.2d 650 · 1989
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Smith (1991), Saul v. United States (1991)
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1089 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2672 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 5 U.S.C. § 8116
Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Baxter v. Federal Communications Commission · Sheila M. Jackson v. Paul A. Kelly · Edelman v. Federal Housing Administration · Vantrease 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reconcile the report's promise that the rights of individual claimants would not be diminished, with the assertion [in the same House report] that 'any claim against the government that is precluded by the exceptions set forth in Section 2680 of Title 28 U.S.C. also is precluded against an employee in [sic] his or her estate.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Carlson“[t]he remedy [provided by the FTCA] ... is exclusive of any other civil action ... against the employee.... Any other civil action or proceeding for money damages arising out of or relating to the same subject matter against the employee or the employee's estate is precluded without regard to when the act or omission occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Carlson“For purposes of this section, the provisions of section 2680(h) of title 28 shall not apply to any cause of action arising out of a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of medical, dental, or related health care functions (including clinical studies and investigations).”
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.