Powers’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Alexander v. Hawk (1998), Posner v. Essex Insurance (1999)
16 federal appellate · 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
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 · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may affirm the district court's judgment on any ground that appears in the record, whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the court below,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Sjuch decisions require the agency to establish priorities for the accomplishment of its policy objectives by balancing the objectives sought to be obtained against such practical considerations as staffing and funding. Here, the FAA has determined that a program of “spot-checking” manufacturers’ compliance with minimum safety standards best accommodates the goal of air transportation safety and the reality of finite agency resources. Judicial intervention in such decisionmaking through private tort suits would require the courts to “second-guess” the political, social, and economic judgments of an agency exercising its regulatory function. It was precisely this sort of judicial intervention in poli-cymaking that the discretionary function exception was designed to prevent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“All parties agree that the Navy’s decision to use contractors to dispose of its waste falls within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. Furthermore, all parties agree that the decision as to what to delegate to the contractor in the waste, disposal contracts also falls within the discretionary function exception. Thus, what the court must determine is whether the Navy’s internal regulations and policies or the waste disposal contracts contained mandatory duties which the Navy failed to perform.”
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.