Mitchell v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
896 F.2d 128 · 1990
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Smith (1991), Osborn v. Haley (2007)
68 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 10 U.S.C. § 1089 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 1452 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · City of Waco Tex v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]pon 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 Attor ney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"effectively denie[s][him] immunity from suit if [he] was entitled to such immunity under the Westfall Act. Under the Act, once the United States Attorney certifies that the federal employee acted within the scope of [his] employment, the plaintiff properly can proceed only against the United States as defendant. The federal employee remains immune from suit. By [rejecting the Attorney Genera's certification], the district court subject[s] [the employee] to the burden of defending a suit . . ., a burden from which [the Westfall Act spares him]."”
3 later decisions 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.