Baum v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
986 F.2d 716 · 1993
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 20 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Nero v. Kansas State University (1993), Gotha v. United States (1997)
32 federal appellate · 20 district · 14 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. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · United States v. Gaubert · Berkovitz v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Indian Towing Company v. United States
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... focuses “not on the agent’s subjective intent in exercising the discretion ..., but on the nature of the actions taken and on whether they are susceptible to policy analysis.” [Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325 , 111 S.Ct. 1267 ]. Thus, “a reviewing court in the usual case is to look to the nature of the challenged decision in an objective, or general sense, and ask whether that decision is one which we would expect inherently to be grounded in considerations of policy.” Baum v. United States, 986 F.2d 716, 720-21 (4th Cir.1993). Moreover, when a statute, regulation, or agency guideline permits a government agent to exercise discretion, “it must be presumed that the agent’s acts are grounded in policy when exercising that discretion.” [Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 324 , 111 S.Ct. 1267 ].”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The decision of how and when to replace a major element of a substantial public facility is, like the decisions involving design and construction, at bottom a question of how best to allocate resources. Such a decision is inherently bound up in considerations of economic and political policy, and accordingly is precisely the type of governmental decision that Congress intended to insulate from judicial second guessing through tort actions for damages.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When established governmental policy, as expressed or implied by statute, regulation, or agency guidelines, allows a Government agent to exercise discretion, it must be presumed that the agent’s acts are grounded in policy when exercising that discretion. For a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, it must allege facts which would support a finding that the challenged actions are not the kind of conduct that can be said to be grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime. The focus of the inquiry is not on the agent’s subjective intent in exercising the discretion conferred by statute or regulation, but on the nature of the actions taken and on whether they are susceptible to policy analysis.”
5 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.