28 U.S.C. § 2680(A)

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

• Griffin v. United States
  500 F.2d 1059· 3d Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 117×
  The court held that the government's approval of a vaccine lot despite test results indicating excessive neurovirulence, by relying on 'biological variation' not permitted by regulation, was not a discretionary function and constituted negligence. However, the court reversed the
• 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
• Jackson v. Kelly
  557 F.2d 735· 10th Cir.· 1977-06-24 ·cited 76×
  A federal military physician acting within the scope of employment is not entitled to absolute judicial immunity for negligent medical treatment, as such acts are considered ministerial, not discretionary governmental functions.
• Mrs. Brent Quinton Downs for herself v. United States
  522 F.2d 990· 6th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the FBI agent's actions during the hijacking were not protected by the discretionary function exception and that the agent's decision to intervene forcibly, rather than continue to wait, constituted negligence under Florida law, leading to the deaths of hostag
• Mrs. Cordie Ola Fair v. United States
  234 F.2d 288· 5th Cir.· 1956-05-25 ·cited 57×
  The court held that a complaint alleging negligence by government medical staff in releasing a soldier with known homicidal tendencies, and a failure to warn, stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• 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.
• John N. Begay and his wife v. United States
  768 F.2d 1059· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-13 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the Public Health Service's decision not to warn uranium miners of radiation dangers fell within the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, barring the suit.
• Mohammad Sami v. United States
  617 F.2d 755· D.C. Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the foreign country exception to the FTCA does not bar claims arising from acts or omissions within the United States, and that the law enforcement officer proviso of the FTCA may apply to officers whose duties do not involve direct arrest or investigation.
• Gibson v. United States
  457 F.2d 1391· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-30 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's assault and battery exception does not bar claims where the injury is a foreseeable consequence of the government's negligence in failing to protect against such acts, and that the discretionary function exception was not properly
• United States v. Cyril T. Faneca, Jr.
  332 F.2d 872· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-01 ·cited 47×
• Gen. Pub. Utils. Corp. v. United States
  745 F.2d 239· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act bars claims against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its decisions regarding investigation, information dissemination, and licensing, as these actions involve policy judgments and regulat
• 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
• Payton v. The United States
  679 F.2d 475· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-01 ·cited 44×
• McMICHAEL v. United States
  856 F.2d 1026· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception did not bar the FTCA claims because the government inspectors failed to follow mandatory safety procedures. It also held that inflation could be considered an intervening fact allowing increased damage claims and affirmed t
• Madrith Bennett Chambers v. The United States
  451 F.2d 1045· Ct. Cl.· 1971-10-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the dissenting opinions improperly considered issues not presented or argued by the parties, departing from established practice.
• United States v. Gray
  199 F.2d 239· 10th Cir.· 1952-10-06 ·cited 42×
  The United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence in the care of a patient admitted to an army hospital, even if the patient has pre-existing mental conditions, and the award must be reduced by disability payments.
• Santoni v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  677 F.2d 174· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the alleged promises made by the FDIC were too indefinite to support a claim of promissory estoppel, and that the appellants' action sounded in tort and was barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• 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.
• Myers & Myers, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv.
  527 F.2d 1252· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Postal Service's decision to renew star route contracts is a discretionary function, but a de facto debarment without proper notice and hearing may fall outside this exception and be actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• 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
• Wright v. United States
  719 F.2d 1032· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 37×
  The United States is not immune from liability for malicious prosecution claims arising from the actions of an investigative or law enforcement officer, even if the claim relates to tax matters or involves discretionary functions.
• 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
• Scanwell Labs., Inc. v. Thomas
  521 F.2d 941· D.C. Cir.· 1975-10-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that Scanwell's tort claims against the Government were barred by exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and its claims against Cutler-Hammer for unfair competition and unjust enrichment failed to state a claim.
• Allen v. United States
  816 F.2d 1417· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the government's decisions regarding the substance of safety and information plans for atomic testing, even if negligent, fall under the discretionary function exception and are thus immune from tort liability.
• Myslakowski v. United States
  806 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 32×
  The government is immune from liability under the discretionary function exception for its decision to sell surplus jeeps 'as-is-where-is' without warnings about rollover propensity.
• Colo. Flying Acad., Inc. v. The United States
  724 F.2d 871· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the design of the Denver Terminal Control Area (TCA) falls under the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that the trial court's findings regarding air traffic controller negligence were sufficient, thus affirming the judgment f
• Lisellotte Moyer v. Martin Marietta Corp.
  481 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the proof failed to establish any connection between the defendants' actions and the pilot's death, warranting a directed verdict.
• Ward v. United States
  471 F.2d 667· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-09 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while the decision to conduct supersonic flights may be a discretionary function, the possibility of operational negligence during those flights must be explored, and discovery continuances should be granted for such claims.
• Barton v. United States
  609 F.2d 977· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the BLM's decision to curtail grazing due to drought and overgrazing fell under the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Williamson v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  815 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 29×
  The court held that claims against the government and its officials under the Federal Tort Claims Act were barred by sovereign immunity due to discretionary function exceptions, misrepresentation exceptions, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Individual officials wer
• Gustof Charles Feyers and Gabrielle Feyers v. United States
  749 F.2d 1222· 6th Cir.· 1984-12-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the United States' decisions to delegate safety responsibility to a contractor, conduct only spot checks, and not institute safety training were discretionary functions protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act, thus depriving the district court of subject matt
• Peterson v. United States
  367 F.2d 271· 9th Cir.· 1966-10-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying 33 U.S.C. § 702c to bar the appellants' claims, as the statute was intended to apply to damages from floods or flood waters in the context of a government flood control program, not to damages caused by the negligent dynami
• The Am. Exch. Bank OF Madison v. United States
  257 F.2d 938· 7th Cir.· 1958-07-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act subjects the United States to liability under state law, and the discretionary function exception does not shield the government from liability for operational decisions like the failure to install handrails on post office steps.
• Weiss v. United States
  787 F.2d 518· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the decision not to depict an aerial cable on an aeronautical chart was a discretionary function, barring the claim under the FTCA. However, it also held that under Colorado law, a landowner with knowledge of a dangerous condition on its property can have a du
• Hutchinson v. United States
  677 F.2d 1322· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-26 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a taxpayer must fully satisfy a tax assessment before bringing a refund suit in district court, and that the Anti-Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act bar suits seeking to restrain tax collection or declare tax liability. Claims against the government a
• Baker v. United States
  817 F.2d 560· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA does not shield the government from liability when an agency employee fails to follow a mandatory regulation, even in a regulatory context.
• Collins v. United States
  783 F.2d 1225· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 26×
  The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is not limited to simple accidents and its discretionary function exception should be narrowly construed. Congressional appropriations for FTCA judgments indicate approval of this narrow construction.
• Jablonski v. United States
  712 F.2d 391· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 26×
  The Federal Tort Claims Act's assault and battery exception does not bar claims arising from negligence that proximately causes an assault, and the discretionary function exception does not apply to operational-level medical decisions regarding patient care and warnings.
• Bergmann v. United States
  689 F.2d 789· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the selection and relocation of a witness under the Federal Witness Security Program are discretionary functions, and the government had no duty to control the witness to protect the public.
• Blitz v. Boog
  328 F.2d 596· 2d Cir.· 1964-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act claim was barred by the intentional tort exception and the discretionary function exception, and that the state law claim against the government employee was barred by official immunity.
• 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.
• Hurst v. United States & Don Hight
  882 F.2d 306· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Corps' failure to issue a prohibitory order when aware of permit violations constituted a breach of a nondiscretionary duty under its own regulations, thus waiving sovereign immunity under the FTCA. The court also held that the admission of expert and lay
• Beins v. United States
  695 F.2d 591· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the discretionary function exemption of the Federal Tort Claims Act does not apply to medical decisions made during airman medical certification procedures, as these decisions are based on medical judgment rather than public policy.
• 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.
• Rise v. United States
  630 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because material issues of fact remained regarding whether the Army's referral of the patient to South Fulton Hospital and its subsequent failure to supervise her care constituted negligence under Georgia l
• 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.
• Coastwise Packet Co., Inc. v. United States
  398 F.2d 77· 1st Cir.· 1968-07-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's actions in determining vessel stability standards fell under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, barring the suit.
• United States v. Alton Morrell
  331 F.2d 498· 10th Cir.· 1964-04-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not permit recovery for claims arising from the discretionary acts of federal officials in issuing grazing permits, even if those officials were aware that the permitted livestock would trespass on private lands.
• Dupree v. The United States
  247 F.2d 819· 3d Cir.· 1957-06-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that claims arising from the enforcement of a regulatory scheme, even if the regulations are invalid, are barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act if the actions were taken in accordance with the regulations and without a lack of due care.