Springer v. Bryant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 F. Supp. 3d 1236 - Chaney v. McBride · S.J. & W. Ranch, Inc. v. Dexter Lehtinen and United States of America

2. “It is altogether anamolous [sic] that similarly situated survivors could maintain this action against the TVA under the law of practically any other state while those who have the misfortune of being relegated to the use of Alabama law are permitted no right of action at all. This lack of uniformity of tort responsibility of a federal institution based on the fortuity of geography is irrational.... The aberration in such cases must find its remedy through an appropriate Congressional waiver of the TVA's immunity to punitive damages or by the creation of some uniform federal right of action, or by Alabama's amendment or reinterpretation of its law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Old Carco LLC · Overton v. FCA U.S. LLC. (In re Old Carco LLC)

3. “The statute allows for three different means by which the TVA may be substituted in for a TVA employee defendant. First, in cases commenced in federal court, the TVA can initiate the substitution process by filing a certification that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time of the alleged incident. Section 9(b)(1). Second, in cases commenced in state courts, the TVA can initiate the process by (1) filing the proper certification before trial begins and (2) removing the case to federal district court. Section 9(b)(2). And finally, in the event that the TVA has refused to initiate the substitution process, the defendant employee may do so "at any time before trial.” Section 9(b)(3). Because this case was originally filed in State court and was then subsequently removed to federal court (albeit long before the FELRTCA was enacted), she contends that the first alternative, which requires that the case be commenced in federal court, is inapplicable. Turning to the second and third alternatives, she argues that both of these provisions require that the substitution process commence prior to trial. Since that did not occur in this case (and, indeed, could not have occurred in this case), she concludes that the Act does not allow for substitution in this case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Maggie Bell Heathcoat, as Administratrix for the Estate of Leonard James Heathcoat, Deceased v. Karl Potts, Kenneth Rhoden, Clyde Snoddy