Williams v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
957 F.2d 742 · 1992
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 603A · 33 U.S.C. § 701F · 33 U.S.C. § 702C
Relies on United States v. James · FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas · Perpich v. Department of Defense · FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas · Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not on the character or origin of the water, but on the purpose of the project and the nature of the activity creating the nexus with the injury ... An approach that elevated the character of the water over the purpose of the dam or levee would lead to absurd results.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Id. at 605, 106 S.Ct. at 3121 . This court applied the James analysis in Boyd v. United States ex rel. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 881 F.2d 895 (10th Cir.1989), holding that the government is immune from prosecution if there is a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“) (emphasis added). The rules and regulations governing public use of the waters at issue here actually support a conclusion contrary to the government's argument, because they refer not to flood waters or flood control, but to”
1 later decision 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.