No. 89-2007’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Matthews v. United States (2006), 77 F. Supp. 2d 91 - Vanover v. Hantman (1999)
3 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 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
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Papasan v. Allain · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Blackmar v. Guerre · Gillihan v. Shillinger
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“failed to enter a 'final judgment' on a separate document as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 58 ... and where no question exists as to the finality of the district court's decision, the absence of a Rule 58 judgment will not prohibit appellate review.... [B]ecause the district court in this case disposed of the entire complaint, we may exercise jurisdiction over Aviles' appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Green v. Seymour · Green v. Seymour“Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place in which the action or proceeding is pending. Such action or proceeding shall be deemed to be an action or proceeding brought against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant. This certification of the Attorney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baggio v. Lombardi“The “exclusive remedy” provision of section 5 is intended to substitute the United States as the solely permissible defendant in all common law tort actions against Federal employees who acted in the scope of employment. Therefore, suits against Federal employees are precluded even when the United States has a defense that prevents an actual recovery. Thus, 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 the employee in his or her estate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Nadler v. Mann
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.