Berger v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
933 F.2d 393 · 1991
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Flick v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance (2000), Van Holt v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance (1998)
30 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 4001 (Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012) · 42 U.S.C. § 4071 · 42 U.S.C. § 4072 · 42 U.S.C. § 4121
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Butz v. Economou · Schweiker v. Chilicky · Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“punishable” for violations of specific state and federal criminal provisions. The assertion that the ... [federal agency] was engaged in a RICO conspiracy under section 1962(d) was patently defective as a matter of law, since it is self-evident that a federal agency is not subject to state or criminal prosecution. Id. at 397 . Accord McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343 , 350 (5th Cir.1993). Consistent with Berger, Chief Justice Marshall established long ago that”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[U]pon the disallowance by the Director [of FEMA or his authorized agents, see 42 U.S.C. § 4071 (a)(1) ] of any such claim, or upon the refusal of the claimant to accept the amount allowed upon any such claim, the claimant, within one year after the date of mailing of notice of disallowance or partial disallowance by the Director, may institute an action against the Director on such claim in the United States district court for the district in which the insured property or the major part thereof shall have been situated, and original exclusive jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon such court to hear and determine such action without regard to the amount in controversy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.