Meyer v. Fidelity Savings’s Empirical Analysis
944 F.2d 562 · 1991
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1421 (Federal Home Loan Bank Act) · 12 U.S.C. § 1818 · 12 U.S.C. § 1821 · 12 U.S.C. § 24 · 12 U.S.C. § 341 (§ 4 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he district courts . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, . . . for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a private person would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the test of “clearly established law” were to be applied at this level of generality, it would bear no relationship to the “objective legal reasonableness” that is the touchstone of Harlow [v. Fitzgerald], Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights_ It should not be surprising, therefore, that our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.