28 U.S.C. § 1346(B)

194 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Quinton v. United States
  304 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-14 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the two-year period under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) is a jurisdictional prerequisite, not a statute of limitations, and that the accrual of a tort claim against the United States is determined by federal law.
• Hungerford v. United States
  307 F.2d 99· 9th Cir.· 1962-08-08 ·cited 84×
  The dissenting judge believes that the accrual of a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act is governed by state law, not federal law.
• Ingham v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  373 F.2d 227· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-14 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the government was negligent for failing to report a significant drop in visibility to the pilot, and this negligence was a proximate cause of the crash. Eastern Air Lines was also found negligent for improperly executing a landing approach and a missed approa
• Felder v. The United States
  543 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-09 ·cited 73×
  The court held that for high incomes under the FTCA, failure to deduct estimated future income taxes constitutes an impermissible award of punitive damages.
• Robin Constr. Co. v. United States
  345 F.2d 610· 3d Cir.· 1965-05-14 ·cited 64×
  The United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the actions of National Guard members who are not in active Federal service, as they are considered employees of the state, not the federal government.
• Clemente v. United States
  567 F.2d 1140· 1st Cir.· 1977-12-16 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the FAA's internal administrative order did not create a legal duty of care to passengers, and therefore the United States could not be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the crash.
• Ferrero v. United States
  603 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-28 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court's damage awards were excessive and reduced them to amounts deemed reasonable based on the evidence.
• Portis v. United States
  483 F.2d 670· 4th Cir.· 1973-08-29 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the hearing loss claim did not begin to run until 1969, when the cause of the deafness was first diagnosed as related to the 1963 malpractice.
• United States v. English
  521 F.2d 63· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the United States, as the entity controlling the premises and instrumentality causing death, was an employer under California Labor Code sections 6400, 6304, and 6305, and thus liable for wrongful death. The court also held that failure to discount future lost
• Hendry v. United States
  418 F.2d 774· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-12 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the medical examinations did not fall under the discretionary function exception, and remanded for consideration of the merits.
• Underwood v. United States
  356 F.2d 92· 5th Cir.· 1966-01-26 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the United States was negligent in releasing an emotionally disturbed airman to duty without adequate medical history and in allowing him to improperly obtain a firearm, and that these actions were the proximate cause of his former wife's death.
• Hilario Molinar v. United States
  515 F.2d 246· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the plaintiff's initial letter, which included attached bills totaling a specific amount, constituted a sufficient written claim to toll the statute of limitations under the Tort Claims Act.
• Am. Airlines, Inc. v. United States & Sara Ann Creasy
  418 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-25 ·cited 52×
• Est. OF Michelle Evette McCALL v. United States
  134 So. 3d 894· Fla.· 2014-03-13 ·cited 44×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida's statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases (Fla. Stat. § 766.118) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution. The court found the cap arbitrarily discriminates against victim
• Barnson v. United States
  816 F.2d 549· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barred claims arising from the government's decision not to warn uranium miners of radiation hazards, and that the Atomic Energy Commission had no mandatory duty to regulate uranium mine safet
• Almario M. Aviles v. Lutz
  887 F.2d 1046· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-17 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and its exceptions bar claims against the United States and its employees for defamation and tortious interference with contract rights, even after substitution of the United States as the defendant.
• Thompson v. United States
  592 F.2d 1104· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-13 ·cited 41×
  The United States is not liable under the FTCA for injuries sustained during a motorcycle race on federal land, as the permit conditions placed responsibility on the permittee and the decision to issue the permit was a discretionary function.
• Eleanore Higginbotham Aretz v. United States
  604 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a contracting purchaser may owe a duty to warn a manufacturer's employees of hazards involved in making the product, and failure to warn can be proximate cause of injury.
• United Scottish Ins. Co. v. United States
  614 F.2d 188· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act requires consideration of state law regarding private person liability, and the government cannot be held liable for negligent inspection without satisfying the elements of the applicable state's good Samaritan doctrine, such as rel
• Quinones v. United States
  492 F.2d 1269· 3d Cir.· 1974-03-06 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a claim for negligent maintenance of employment records is not barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act's libel and slander exception, and Pennsylvania law would recognize such a cause of action.
• Morris v. United States
  521 F.2d 872· 9th Cir.· 1975-09-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claims fell under an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act's waiver of sovereign immunity.
• Edelman v. Fed. Hous. Admin. by its Comm'r
  382 F.2d 594· 2d Cir.· 1967-09-07 ·cited 36×
  An unsuccessful bidder lacks standing to challenge an FHA auction, and claims sounding in tort are barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act, including those for misrepresentation or interference with contract rights.
• Lykins v. Pointer Inc.
  725 F.2d 645· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 35×
  The court held that there are no statutory or constitutional barriers to exercising pendent party jurisdiction when the federal claim is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), and the district court must exercise its discretion on the matter.
• ART METAL-U.S.A., Inc. v. United States
  753 F.2d 1151· D.C. Cir.· 1985-02-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that claims for interference with prospective advantage and injurious falsehood are barred under the FTCA's exceptions for interference with contract rights and libel/slander, respectively. Furthermore, violations of federal procurement regulations do not create a
• Thorne v. United States
  479 F.2d 804· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-31 ·cited 32×
• Leaf v. United States
  588 F.2d 733· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-26 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a tort claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act arises where the negligent acts or omissions occurred, not where the injury or loss was sustained.
• Wine v. The United States
  705 F.2d 366· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 28×
  Claims arising from intentional torts committed by government employees are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), regardless of whether the employee was on or off duty, or if the claim is framed as negligence.
• Hicks v. United States
  511 F.2d 407· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a hospital's duty to disclose information to the court is distinct from its duty of reasonable care in diagnosis, and that the trial judge's finding of negligence in disclosure was not clearly erroneous.
• Mkt. Ins. Co. v. United States
  415 F.2d 459· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-08 ·cited 28×
  The United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the death of an independent contractor's employee when the government did not know of the specific hazard and did not assume a duty to warn beyond what was contractually required.
• AIR Transp. Assocs., Inc. v. United States
  221 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1955-03-18 ·cited 28×
  An exculpatory clause in an agreement for the use of a government airfield is void as against public policy if the airfield is operated as a public service, and thus cannot bar recovery for negligence.
• Smith v. United States
  7 F.4th 963· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-29 ·cited 26×
  A veteran brought a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit against the United States alleging that VA medical personnel negligently failed to timely diagnose and treat his throat cancer, and the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Veterans' Judicial Review Act, w
• Rudolfo Ramirez v. United States
  567 F.2d 854· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-02 ·cited 26×
  A government physician's failure to warn of surgical risks does not constitute a misrepresentation within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and therefore does not bar a patient's suit for negligence.
• Stewart v. United States
  199 F.2d 517· 7th Cir.· 1952-09-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government waived its jurisdictional defense by raising it late and that the exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act are affirmative defenses, not jurisdictional bars.
• Charles and Charlene Baker v. F & F Inv. Co.
  489 F.2d 829· 7th Cir.· 1973-12-06 ·cited 25×
  Federal agencies are subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 for damages, and the Federal Tort Claims Act does not preclude such suits. The statute of limitations for claims against federal agencies runs from the cessation of discriminatory conduct or contract performanc
• Washington v. United States
  769 F.2d 1436· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that under the FTCA, a personal injury claim for a comatose patient does not accrue until the patient is aware of their injury and its cause, or until their death if awareness never occurs. Therefore, the wrongful death action was timely filed.
• State OF Tenn. ex rel. William M. Leech, Jr. v. Dole
  749 F.2d 331· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the federal government is entitled to restitution for its share of bid rigging settlement funds paid to the state for federally funded projects, and that the district court has jurisdiction over the matter.
• Gross v. United States
  676 F.2d 295· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge believes the "intentional torts" exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act bars the plaintiff's recovery because the underlying acts complained of fall within the statutory exceptions.
• Redmond v. The United States
  518 F.2d 811· 7th Cir.· 1975-06-17 ·cited 24×
  A claim arising from the government's negligent or intentional misrepresentations, even if incidental to a breach of duty, is barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act's misrepresentation exception.
• Cooper v. United States
  442 F.2d 908· 7th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's second complaint was properly dismissed because the cause of action accrued at the time of the initial injury and failure to provide care, not upon later aggravation or release, rendering the claim time-barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Courtney v. United States & Donald Truex
  230 F.2d 112· 2d Cir.· 1956-02-16 ·cited 24×
  A civilian caretaker employee of a federally recognized but non-activated National Guard unit is an "employee" of the United States within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Mandel v. United States
  793 F.2d 964· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 23×
  The United States had a duty to warn of submerged rocks in the Buffalo River, and its failure to do so, along with the ranger's recommendation without warning, constituted operational negligence proximately causing the plaintiff's injuries.
• Metz v. United States
  788 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 23×
  The court held that claims arising out of intentional torts listed in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) are barred under the FTCA, even if framed as other torts, if the underlying conduct falls within the statutory exceptions.
• Louie v. United States
  776 F.2d 819· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 23×
  The Army should be held liable for negligence under the FTCA because a special relationship was created when it accepted custody of an intoxicated soldier, giving rise to a duty of care.
• Williams v. United States
  693 F.2d 555· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a plaintiff's state court complaint, when combined with a subsequently filed administrative claim form, can satisfy the notice requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act, even if the form itself lacks a sum certain.
• Case v. CPC Int'l, Inc.
  730 F.2d 745· Fed. Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an interference proceeding was properly declared, the 'phantom' counts were valid, and priority was correctly awarded to CPC based on its earlier filing date.
• S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (varig Airlines) v. United States
  692 F.2d 1205· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-26 ·cited 22×
  The United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligent inspection and certification of an aircraft, as this duty is not protected by the discretionary function or misrepresentation exceptions.
• Naisbitt v. The United States
  611 F.2d 1350· 10th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that claims arising from assaults committed by government employees are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), even if framed as negligence, because the intentional tort is imputed to the government.
• Mrs. Marie Green v. Carlson
  581 F.2d 669· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-03 ·cited 22×
  A claim against federal officials for damages based on alleged constitutional violations resulting in death survives for the benefit of the decedent's estate, and is governed by federal common law, not state survival statutes.
• United States v. DeCAMP
  478 F.2d 1188· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government's decision not to require canopy guards on bulldozers, based on local custom and safety considerations, did not constitute negligence under the Tort Claims Act, as the decision was discretionary and did not encompass the risk of the accident tha
• United States v. Carroll
  369 F.2d 618· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-21 ·cited 22×
  A serviceman injured while traveling by military transport to a reserve drill, even if not under direct orders for that specific travel mode, is considered engaged in activity incident to service and cannot recover under the Federal Tort Claims Act.