28 U.S.C. § 1346(B)

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

• In re AIR Crash Disaster AT NEW Orleans (Moisant Field) v. United States
  544 F.2d 270· 6th Cir.· 1976-10-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the air traffic controller's negligent but incomplete answer regarding landing legality did not constitute a clearance to land and was not the proximate cause of the crash, as the pilot retained ultimate responsibility for aircraft operation.
• Bembenista v. United States
  866 F.2d 493· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's assault and battery exception does not bar a claim for breach of a hospital's duty of protective care to a patient, but affirmed the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim for failure to properly present it to the agency.
• Felipa Monreal Rodriguez v. Handy
  802 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an appeal from an order granting attorney's fees without calculating the amount is premature and nonappealable when the merits of the case have been settled.
• Henderson v. United States
  827 F.2d 1233· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the FTCA claim based solely on a finding of unforeseeability, and that the government's duty of care should be assessed under California's Rowland factors.
• Woods v. United States
  720 F.2d 1451· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the magistrate's finding of no proximate cause for the alleged damage by Dr. Lee was not clearly erroneous, and therefore, the claim should not be reversed.
• Hoston v. Silbert
  681 F.2d 876· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the wrongful death action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, as the complaint alleged sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction.
• Gonzales v. United States
  589 F.2d 465· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the amendment to add a respondeat superior claim and that the finding of no obvious intoxication was not clearly erroneous.
• Levin v. Taylor
  464 F.2d 770· D.C. Cir.· 1972-05-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, requiring substitution of the United States as the defendant.
• Paulyne B. McCALL v. United States
  338 F.2d 589· 9th Cir.· 1964-11-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a military member on leave, traveling in a private vehicle for personal reasons, is not acting within the scope of employment under the Federal Tort Claims Act, even if the travel is related to a duty exchange.
• Tapia v. United States
  338 F.2d 416· 2d Cir.· 1964-11-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to annul a conviction or entertain a tort claim against the government based on misrepresentation.
• DOE v. United States
  838 F.2d 220· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's exception for claims arising out of assault or battery bars negligence claims based on a failure to prevent such acts, even if a special relationship existed.
• Barnes v. United States
  678 F.2d 10· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 9×
  An appellate court has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 to grant partial summary affirmance of an undisputed portion of a judgment while retaining jurisdiction over the disputed portion.
• Ross v. United States
  640 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the pilot's contributory negligence barred his estate's claim, but the passenger's claim was not barred due to concurrent negligence by the air traffic controller.
• Mundt v. United States
  611 F.2d 1257· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-03 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of false imprisonment under Arizona law because his detention was pursuant to valid legal process.
• Klett v. PIM
  965 F.2d 587· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a violation of a federal statute or regulation alone does not create a cause of action under the FTCA unless state law imposes a similar duty, and that federal courts lack jurisdiction to punish contempt of another court's injunction.
• Borquez v. United States
  773 F.2d 1050· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 8×
  The United States had a duty to warn recreational visitors of dangerous conditions at the Roosevelt Power Canal Diversion Dam due to the Forest Service's management and administration of the area for recreational purposes.
• Gertrude Reminga v. United States
  695 F.2d 1000· 6th Cir.· 1982-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellants' failure to file a transcript of their judgments with the General Accounting Office, as required by 31 U.S.C. § 724a, barred their recovery of post-judgment interest against the United States.
• Bettis v. United States
  635 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the government could not be held liable under respondeat superior because the driver was outside the scope of employment, there was a material factual issue regarding negligent entrustment, precluding summary judgment.
• Cenna v. United States
  402 F.2d 168· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for tortious conversion under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the use of the plans was with the plaintiff's consent, and any claim based on misrepresentation or deceit is barred by statute.
• Williams v. United States
  252 F.2d 887· 5th Cir.· 1958-02-28 ·cited 8×
  The United States can be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the same manner as a private individual, and a plaintiff need not identify a specific negligent employee to establish liability.
• Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. United States
  967 F.2d 965· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that neither the Alien Tort Statute nor the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waived the United States' sovereign immunity for claims arising from alleged failure to provide adequate protection during military occupation.
• Galvin v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin.
  860 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is not the proper party to sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and that the discretionary function exception barred the claim even if the United States had been sued.
• Ware v. United States
  838 F. Supp. 1561· M.D. Fla.· 1993-11-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that claims of negligence and defamation against the United States under the FTCA are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but claims for malicious continuation of prosecution and false imprisonment against federal investigative officers may proceed.
• Hull v. United States
  971 F.2d 1499· 10th Cir.· 1992-08-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court has the inherent power to order a fully reversionary trust for a handicapped child's damages if it is in the child's best interest, and that interest on the award accrues from the date of the formal judgment entry under Rule 58, not from ear
• Dunbar Corp. v. Lindsey
  905 F.2d 754· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim and the Bivens claim, finding that Dunbar had alleged a valid cause of action in trespass under North Carolina law and a constitutionally protected possessory interest for the Bive
• Cecile Indus., Inc. v. United States
  793 F.2d 97· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the alleged violation of federal procurement regulations did not constitute negligence under Pennsylvania tort law.
• Yancoskie v. Del. River Port Auth.
  528 F.2d 722· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's cause of action did not arise under federal law and there was no diversity of citizenship.
• United States v. Murray
  463 F.2d 208· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's employee's negligence in failing to timely activate runway lights was a proximate cause of the fatal plane crash.
• Craghead v. United States
  423 F.2d 664· 10th Cir.· 1970-03-17 ·cited 6×
  Summary judgments for the government were appropriate because the government's contractual right to inspect and enforce safety standards did not equate to control over the independent contractor's employees, thus not creating liability for employee injuries.
• Supchak v. United States
  365 F.2d 844· 3d Cir.· 1966-08-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim for relief and was improperly dismissed, as the alleged negligence in medical examination was not necessarily a discretionary function barred by statute.
• Goodwill Indus. of El Paso v. United States
  218 F.2d 270· 5th Cir.· 1954-12-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the claim fell within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and thus the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper.
• United States v. Trubow
  214 F.2d 192· 9th Cir.· 1954-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries caused by the negligent condition of its premises, even if the liability stems from landowner duties rather than direct employee negligence.
• Ware v. United States
  971 F. Supp. 1442· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-21 ·cited 5×
  The court found in favor of the Government, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove malicious continuation of prosecution.
• Cheney v. United States
  972 F.2d 247· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-11 ·cited 5×
• Taitt v. United States
  770 F.2d 890· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that claims regarding the failure to provide information to the Parole Commission and the termination of psychiatric treatment were improperly dismissed without allowing discovery. Claims related to the Witness Protection Program were properly dismissed as discreti
• Attallah v. United States
  955 F.2d 776· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA and that the criminal acts of the agents were outside the scope of their employment.
• Irving v. United States
  909 F.2d 598· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA does not automatically bar claims of negligent inspection by government employees if agency policy does not allow for policy-level discretion in the performance of the inspection.
• Manko v. United States
  830 F.2d 831· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of causation and most damage awards, but remanded for a limited factual inquiry regarding lost pension earnings. The wife's claim for loss of consortium was dismissed as time-barred.
• Cicero v. United States
  812 F.2d 1040· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the United States did not deviate from the proper standard of care in providing physical therapy was not clearly erroneous.
• Garza v. United States
  809 F.2d 1170· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The United States is not liable under the FTCA for a child's injury from a stolen explosive because the theft and subsequent events were not reasonably foreseeable consequences of the government's initial negligence.
• Eaglin v. United States
  794 F.2d 981· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim arose in a foreign country, and thus the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity did not apply, affirming the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Elnora Phillips v. United States
  792 F.2d 639· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the magistrate's finding that the VA was not "in charge" of the work under the Illinois Structural Work Act, nor was it negligent, because the subcontractor's failure to notify anyone of his work made it impossible for the VA or prime contractor to exercise con
• Craine v. United States
  722 F.2d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the United States was not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the renter's criminal negligence was the sole proximate cause of the deaths, and no negligence by government employees was found.
• Oakley v. United States
  622 F.2d 447· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act limits interest on judgments against the United States to 4% per annum, and that the government can be held jointly and severally liable for its own negligence causing indivisible injuries.
• Reamer v. The United States
  459 F.2d 709· 4th Cir.· 1972-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction, as contract claims over $10,000 are barred from district court and tort claims fall under the FTCA's misrepresentation exception.
• Boulware v. Parker
  457 F.2d 450· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Warden's actions were within the scope of his official duties, rendering him immune from suit under the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Stokes v. United States
  444 F.2d 69· 4th Cir.· 1971-06-22 ·cited 4×
  A child can sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act for pain and suffering even after parents settled medical expenses, as North Carolina law recognizes separate claims.
• Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. United States
  378 F.2d 812· 2d Cir.· 1967-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the package, even when temporarily removed for customs investigation, remained 'postal matter' for the purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act exception.
• State of Or. v. United States
  308 F.2d 568· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Tort Claims Act does not grant jurisdiction for claims seeking recovery of fire suppression costs where no injury or loss of the claimant's property is alleged.
• O'Toole v. United States
  284 F.2d 792· 2d Cir.· 1960-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that New York law, specifically Section 59 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, requires that permission for vehicle use be for the purpose and time granted; a deviation negates implied permission, thus precluding owner liability.