Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 951 F.2d 272 - Pipkin

Pipkin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Duplan v. Harper (1999), Benge ex rel. Benge v. United States (1994)

7 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions

220199020002010decided

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 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · United States v. Kubrick · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson

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

  1. “[c]ourts are not free to construe section 2401(b) so as to defeat that section's purpose of encouraging prompt presentation of claims against the federal government.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When Congress has acted to create a comprehensive statutory scheme to address a particular class of claims, the courts will not act to create additional judicial remedies ... even where a particular litigant does not have a remedy available under the statutory scheme.... This is particularly true in federal employment relationships, where Congress has provided a comprehensive civil service scheme to address disputes.”
    2 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.