28 U.S.C. § 2680(A)

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

• Sutton v. United States
  819 F.2d 1289· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-25 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception of the FTCA does not automatically bar claims brought under the law enforcement proviso of § 2680(h), and that the case must be remanded for factual development to determine the applicability of these provisions.
• Carlyle v. United States
  674 F.2d 554· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Army's decision regarding the level and method of supervision for recruits housed in a hotel fell under the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, thus barring federal court jurisdiction over claims of negligence related to that d
• Cisco v. United States
  768 F.2d 788· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the EPA's decisions regarding warning property owners about contaminated landfills and removing hazardous waste fall within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• 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.
• Loge v. United States & unknown Emps. of the Dep't of Health
  662 F.2d 1268· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that claims based on the government's discretionary functions in regulating vaccines are barred by sovereign immunity, but claims alleging violation of mandatory regulations and negligence under Arkansas law are not. Constitutional claims were dismissed.
• 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. 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.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. United States
  837 F.2d 116· 3d Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception bars recovery against the United States for the EPA On Scene Coordinator's decision on when to schedule the neutralization of an oleum tank, as this decision involved policy judgment and balancing of risks.
• Butler v. United States
  726 F.2d 1057· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA does not bar these lawsuits, and that the United States was negligent in failing to provide adequate warnings for a hazardous depression it created.
• Jayvee Brand, Inc. v. United States
  721 F.2d 385· D.C. Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 20×
  The Federal Tort Claims Act does not grant jurisdiction for suits against the United States based on an agency's failure to follow procedural mandates in quasi-legislative rulemaking, and individual agency members are absolutely immune from such claims.
• Carol A. Gelley for the Heirs of Richard Lawrence Gelley v. Astra Pharm. Prods. Inc.
  610 F.2d 558· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a cause of action cognizable under Minnesota law, and thus the Federal Tort Claims Act did not waive sovereign immunity for the United States.
• 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.
• DSI Corp. v. Sec'y OF Hous. & Urban Dev. (of the United States)
  594 F.2d 177· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the suit was against the United States, not the Secretary of HUD, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction over contract claims exceeding $10,000 and tort claims not properly filed under the FTCA.
• 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.
• Konecny v. United States & Red Lake Drainage & Conservancy Dist.
  388 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1967-12-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under both the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act were properly dismissed, the former due to the discretionary function exception and the latter due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
• Goddard v. Dist. OF Columbia Redev. Land Agency
  287 F.2d 343· D.C. Cir.· 1961-01-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that suits for damages against the Redevelopment Land Agency and the United States were properly dismissed because the claims were barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act, specifically exceptions for discretionary functions and misrepresentation/deceit.
• 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.
• United States v. Ira R. URE and Edna B. Ure
  225 F.2d 709· 9th Cir.· 1955-09-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the government's decision not to line the canal was a discretionary function, barring liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court also found that the evidence rebutted any inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur.
• 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.
• B & F Trawlers, Inc. v. United States
  841 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, incorporated into the SIAA and PVA, shields the government from liability for the apprehension and custody of drug-running vessels, but not for violations of regulations in carrying out those functions.
• Denham v. United States
  834 F.2d 518· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the United States Army Corps of Engineers' failure to remove or warn of submerged anchors in a designated swimming area constituted operational negligence, not a protected discretionary function under the FTCA, and th
• 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.
• Payton v. The United States
  636 F.2d 132· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-02 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the alleged negligent acts of prison and parole officials in releasing a dangerous prisoner, despite knowledge of his violent propensities, do not fall under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Blaber v. United States
  332 F.2d 629· 2d Cir.· 1964-05-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries arising from an explosion at a contractor's laboratory, as its decisions regarding safety supervision constituted discretionary functions and it did not voluntaril
• Edythe Shuman v. United States
  765 F.2d 283· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the United States for asbestos-induced injuries is barred by the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act because the government's decisions regarding safety regulations and inspections at the shipyard invol
• Hylin v. United States
  715 F.2d 1206· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-23 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action under Illinois law and the FTCA.
• Wright v. United States
  568 F.2d 153· 10th Cir.· 1977-12-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the United States was not negligent in the design or construction of the bridge approaches and that its actions were protected by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Irzyk v. United States
  412 F.2d 749· 10th Cir.· 1969-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The Government is not liable for the negligence of its inspector when the inspector's duty is solely to report failures to superiors, and the work is performed by an independent contractor.
• Dube v. Pittsburgh Corning
  870 F.2d 790· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the government's failure to warn domestic bystanders of asbestos dangers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard did not fall under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Kelly v. United States
  924 F.2d 355· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-17 ·cited 16×
  The court's majority opinion is not provided, but this concurrence holds that the case should be decided on procedural grounds due to the appellant's failure to oppose summary judgment.
• 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.
• Mackie L. Shivers, Jr. v. USA
  1 F.4th 924· 11th Cir.· 2021-06-09 ·cited 15×
  A federal inmate sought damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act and brought a Bivens claim after being stabbed by his cellmate, alleging prison officials negligently assigned the cellmate to his cell and violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismis
• Camozzi v. Roland/Miller & Hope Consulting Grp.
  866 F.2d 287· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the USPS's alleged negligent failure to oversee compliance with safety standards, including covering floor openings, did not fall within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.
• Hydrogen Tech. Corp. v. United States
  831 F.2d 1155· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the FBI acted with due care in dismantling the prototype generator, thus the government is immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception.
• Smith v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  795 F.2d 301· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 14×
  The General Service Administration's decision to sell surplus asbestos "as is" without warnings or warranties falls within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, shielding the government from tort liability.
• 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.
• Martin v. United States
  546 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the death of a park visitor attacked by a bear, as the Park Service's actions constituted discretionary functions protected by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).
• 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.
• Piechowicz v. United States
  885 F.2d 1207· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal agents' decision not to offer witness protection was a discretionary function immune from suit under the FTCA, and that the agents were entitled to qualified immunity as no clearly established right to such protection existed.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Mmahat
  907 F.2d 546· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the law firm's dishonesty exclusion from malpractice insurance coverage was valid, but remanded for credit for amounts paid by settling defendants.
• Natural GAS Pipeline Co. OF Am. Indus. Corp. v. United States
  742 F.2d 502· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception bars claims arising from the FAA's issuance and monitoring of aircraft modification certificates.
• Octavio Jimenez-Nieves v. United States
  682 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims arising from the Social Security Administration's error were not barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) and that the misrepresentation exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply because the plaintiff did not rely on the false statement
• Kohn v. United States
  680 F.2d 922· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 12×
  The Feres doctrine bars claims by servicemen for injuries incident to military service, but does not bar claims for independent, post-service negligent acts by the military against parents of a deceased serviceman.
• AETNA Ins. Co. v. United States
  628 F.2d 1201· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-14 ·cited 12×
  The United States is immune from liability for flood damage caused by a project related to flood control, even if the project has multiple purposes or negligence contributed to the damage.
• 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.
• Maynard v. United States
  430 F.2d 1264· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the selection of a flight route by a subordinate officer, made in accordance with official regulations and directives, falls within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act and thus shields the government from liability.
• 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.
• 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.
• Starrett v. United States
  847 F.2d 539· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 11×
  The court held that Executive Order 11258 constitutes a specific and mandatory requirement for the Navy's operations, thus the discretionary function exception to the FTCA does not apply.
• Medina v. United States
  709 F.2d 104· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 11×
  A military commander has broad discretion to exclude civilians from a base, and such exclusion does not violate due process if it is not patently arbitrary or discriminatory, even if based on suspicion rather than proven fact.