28 U.S.C. § 1346(B)

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

• United States v. State OF Md. for the Use of Mary Jane Meyer
  349 F.2d 693· D.C. Cir.· 1965-03-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the District Court's order awarding interest was correct because the Meyer and Brady cases, despite individual awards, constituted single actions under Maryland law, and thus the total judgments exceeded $100,000.
• United States v. Hunsucker
  314 F.2d 98· 9th Cir.· 1962-12-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government's negligent acts in diverting flood waters and maintaining sewage ponds occurred at the operational level, thus not falling under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Stewart v. United States
  186 F.2d 627· 7th Cir.· 1951-01-10 ·cited 22×
  The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant, remanding for further proceedings.
• Mendez v. Belton
  739 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that Dr. Belton is not absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) for alleged intentional discrimination, but affirmed summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination.
• First State Bank OF Hudson Cnty. v. The United States
  599 F.2d 558· 3d Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 20×
  The FDIC owed no duty to warn a bank of its president's criminal conduct discovered during a supervisory examination, as the FDIC's role is to protect the insurance fund, not the bank itself.
• Ramonita Ortiz v. United States Gov't
  595 F.2d 65· 1st Cir.· 1979-03-30 ·cited 20×
  Statutory considerations do not bar the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over a nonfederal claim against a third-party defendant who is already in the litigation on an independent federal jurisdictional basis.
• Gibson v. United States
  567 F.2d 1237· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-15 ·cited 20×
  The government can be held directly liable for negligence if its employees fail to exercise reasonable care in overseeing a contractor's safety precautions, even if the contractor also has a duty to provide safety.
• Ahern v. Veterans Admin.
  537 F.2d 1098· 10th Cir.· 1976-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of negligence for administering excessive radiation was not clearly erroneous, and that the patient did not provide informed consent for the experimental treatment.
• United States v. Jacobs
  308 F.2d 906· 5th Cir.· 1962-10-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the interest on the judgment against the United States must be computed according to statutory limitations, not from the date of the judgment.
• United States v. 1500 Cases
  249 F.2d 382· 7th Cir.· 1957-11-14 ·cited 20×
  The District Court lacked authority to assess damages against the United States for pre-seizure storage charges in a condemnation proceeding under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
• Powell v. United States
  233 F.2d 851· 10th Cir.· 1956-05-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the United States is immune from suit under the Tort Claims Act for claims based on acts or omissions of government employees exercising due care in the execution of a statute or regulation, even if the regulation is later found to be irregular or ineffective.
• Sickman v. United States (two cases)
  184 F.2d 616· 7th Cir.· 1950-10-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims because they fell under the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Rodriguez v. Comas
  888 F.2d 899· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the arresting officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff's right not to be arrested for refusing to answer questions was clearly established and the officer's belief that the arrest was lawful was unreasonable. The court also held tha
• Ariz. Maint. Co. v. United States
  864 F.2d 1497· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the government's decision regarding the amount of dynamite used in blasting is not protected by the discretionary function exception if it violates objective industry standards, but the initial decision to use blasting requires further review.
• DOE v. United States
  718 F.2d 1039· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court's finding of foreseeability of the criminal act was clearly erroneous, and therefore the United States could not be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. United States Postal Serv.
  675 F.2d 756· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Postal Service is immune from tort claims arising from the loss or negligent transmission of mail, as this immunity is preserved by 39 U.S.C. § 409(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b) of the FTCA.
• Parrish Ian Charlton v. United States
  743 F.2d 557· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-12 ·cited 18×
  Failure to comply with an agency's request for further information under the Federal Tort Claims Act does not constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies and is not a jurisdictional bar to suit, provided the claimant initially presented a claim with minimal notice and
• Reynolds v. United States
  643 F.2d 707· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the claim against the United States for negligent inspection of a residence by the FmHA falls under the "misrepresentation" exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act and is therefore barred.
• The Citizens Nat'l Bank OF Waukegan v. United States
  594 F.2d 1154· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-27 ·cited 18×
  The Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for intentional torts committed against servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service, even after amendments to the Act.
• Accardi v. United States
  435 F.2d 1239· 3d Cir.· 1970-12-28 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that while the appellant's insanity might toll the New Jersey statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims, the United States is not a 'person' under Section 1983, and other claims were barred by statutes of limitations
• Bissell v. Edmond J. McELLIGOTT
  369 F.2d 115· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Sgt. Tompkins was not acting within the scope of his employment under Missouri respondeat superior law at the time of the accident, thus the United States is not liable.
• United States v. Freeman Taylor
  236 F.2d 649· 6th Cir.· 1956-09-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Air Force personnel were not acting within the scope of their employment when they deviated from their training mission to fly to the pilot's hometown, thus the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Stewart v. United States
  716 F.2d 755· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction existed for the pendent party claim against Nuss and that the United States was immune from suit as a statutory employer under Colorado law.
• Titchnell v. United States
  681 F.2d 165· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the cumulative testimony of expert and non-expert witnesses was sufficient for a fact finder to ascertain the degree of care required for swine flu inoculations and to find that the care provided deviated from the standard practice, proximately causing the pla
• Preston v. United States
  596 F.2d 232· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's misrepresentation exception barred claims arising from the government's alleged negligent audits and approval of a warehouse, but reversed the dismissal of claims for conversion of grain.
• Burnell Keath Uptagrafft v. United States
  315 F.2d 200· 4th Cir.· 1963-03-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that neither the Federal Tort Claims Act nor general principles of indemnity provide a basis for an employee to seek indemnity or exoneration from the United States for liabilities incurred while acting within the scope of employment, absent an express contract.
• Moos v. United States
  225 F.2d 705· 8th Cir.· 1955-09-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a claim for an unauthorized surgical operation falls under the "assault and battery" exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction.
• Diminnie v. United States & Daniel Patterson
  728 F.2d 301· 6th Cir.· 1984-02-20 ·cited 15×
  The court held that FTCA claims are barred by statutory exclusions and statutes of limitations, and that a plaintiff's cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff knows of the injury and its cause, and that the government actively concealed the culprit's identity. The cou
• Broadway Open AIR Theatre, Inc. v. United States
  208 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1953-11-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a claim for money allegedly diverted by government agents for the payment of an individual's taxes, even if wrongful, arises in respect of the collection of a tax and is barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act's tax exception.
• Formula ONE Motors, Ltd. v. United States
  777 F.2d 822· 2d Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the claim for damages to an automobile, allegedly destroyed by DEA agents during a search for narcotics, falls within the FTCA exception for claims arising from the detention of goods by law enforcement officers.
• John v. Arvanis
  739 F.2d 1287· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 14×
  The United States is not liable to subcontractors when a prime contractor fails to obtain a Miller Act payment bond and defaults, as neither the Miller Act nor the Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity in such circumstances.
• Ursula Spencer v. NEW Orleans Levee Bd.
  737 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-03 ·cited 14×
  Federal officials are absolutely immune from civil liability for discretionary actions within the scope of their authority, and removal jurisdiction does not cure a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the state court.
• Am. Ass'n OF Commodity Traders v. Dep't OF the Treas.
  598 F.2d 1233· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming the dismissal.
• REY v. United States
  484 F.2d 45· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' amended claim, alleging negligence in the diagnosis and notification of hog cholera, was barred by the misrepresentation exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, even though the original complaint focused on quarantine issues.
• United States v. The State OF Wash. & Wenairco, Inc.
  351 F.2d 913· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Government's negligence in failing to provide adequate warning devices for a power line was a proximate cause of an aircraft crash, despite the pilot's contributory negligence.
• Gilman v. United States
  206 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1953-08-03 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the government should be able to implead its employees for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act, similar to private employers.
• United States v. Grigalauskas
  195 F.2d 494· 1st Cir.· 1952-04-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the damages awarded were not so grossly excessive as to be clearly erroneous, and affirmed the district court's judgment.
• Zeleznik v. United States
  770 F.2d 20· 3d Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 13×
  A Federal Tort Claims Act claim accrues when the injured party knows of the injury and its immediate cause, not when they discover the identity of all potentially liable parties or the government's specific involvement.
• McGARR v. United States
  736 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as the allegations were sufficient to alert the defendant to the nature of the claim.
• Andrews v. United States
  732 F.2d 366· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for negligent supervision by government medical personnel, even when the direct perpetrator's actions fall outside the scope of employment, and that the claim arose from medical malpractice, not assault and
• Gates v. United States
  707 F.2d 1141· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding no causal relationship between the swine flu vaccine and the plaintiff's Guillain-Barre Syndrome, given the eleven-month delay in onset and the persuasive epidemiological data.
• Rooney v. United States
  694 F.2d 582· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that post-judgment interest against the United States under 31 U.S.C. § 724a is not owed when neither party filed the judgment transcript in the GAO before the mandate of affirmance, and that a claim for attorney's fees is barred by res judicata if previously decid
• Bryant v. United States
  565 F.2d 650· 10th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's failure to properly implement its supervision policy, rather than the policy itself, constituted negligence, and this negligence was the proximate cause of the students' injuries.
• Witt v. United States
  462 F.2d 1261· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-14 ·cited 12×
  The United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained by a federal prisoner during a work detail, where the injury was caused by the negligence of a civilian driver who was acting as an employee of the federal government.
• Small v. United States
  333 F.2d 702· 3d Cir.· 1964-06-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a claim for unlawful interference with business, even if alleged as negligent, requires intentional misconduct and is barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act's exemption for claims arising out of interference with contract rights.
• United States v. State OF Md.
  322 F.2d 1009· D.C. Cir.· 1963-06-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Captain McCoy, a civilian air technician paid by the United States to care for federal property allocated to the Air National Guard, was an employee of the United States acting within the scope of his employment under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court als
• Morton v. United States
  228 F.2d 431· D.C. Cir.· 1955-06-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the United States is immune from liability for claims arising from the exercise of discretionary functions or specific torts like assault and false imprisonment.
• Stepp v. United States
  207 F.2d 909· 4th Cir.· 1953-11-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the intentional use of excessive force by a government employee in making an arrest, resulting in death, constitutes an assault and battery barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that allowing an amended answer to raise this defense was not an abuse of dis
• Prescott v. United States
  973 F.2d 696· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, and in this case, failed to present sufficient evidence that the alleged negligent acts stemmed from policy judgments.
• Bailey v. United States
  642 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 11×
  The court should consider equitable factors and grant relief from strict adherence to administrative claim filing deadlines when circumstances warrant.