Clement v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
980 F.2d 48 · 1992
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Strahan v. Coxe (1997), La Esperanza de P.R., Inc. v. Perez y Cia. de Puerto Rico, Inc. (1997)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc. · Puerto Rico Ports Authority v. M/v Manhattan Prince, Sujeen Trading Pte., Ltd. v. Crowley Towing & Transportation Co. · Wing v. Morse
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only when, after reviewing the entire record, we are 'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“) and 4 Harper, James & Gray, supra (same) with Wright, Causation in Tort Law , 73 Cal. L. Rev. 1735 , 1782 (1985) (substantial factor test's incorporation of both causation-in-fact and proximate causation issues persists in the Restatement (Second) of Torts”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]ome courts and commentators restrict the 'substantial factor' test to the determination of whether negligent conduct in fact caused a particular injury,”
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.