28 U.S.C. § 2680(A)

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

• Schindler v. United States
  661 F.2d 552· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-09 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not incorporate state law distinctions regarding municipal liability, and thus the United States cannot claim immunity based on a state's public-private duty distinction when sued under the FTCA. The court reversed the d
• Hitchcock v. United States
  665 F.2d 354· D.C. Cir.· 1981-09-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government was negligent in administering a rabies vaccine without proper informed consent and that the discretionary function exception did not apply to shield the government from liability.
• Emch v. The United States
  630 F.2d 523· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-12 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and denial of leave to amend, holding that the claims fell within the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act and that the administrative claims lacked allegations of operational negligence
• Taylor v. United States
  590 F.2d 263· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that 33 U.S.C. § 702c provides absolute immunity to the United States for damages caused by floods or flood waters, regardless of whether the water is characterized as backwater or whether the government's operation of flood control works was negligent.
• Davis v. United States
  536 F.2d 758· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction because the duties of OSHA officers are federally imposed and lack counterparts under Nebraska law.
• Andrulonis v. United States
  924 F.2d 1210· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the government's failure to warn of the extreme dangers of a specific laboratory experiment constituted negligence, and this omission was not protected by the discretionary function exception of the FTCA.
• Loyd P. Bowman v. United States
  820 F.2d 1393· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the alleged negligence in failing to install a guardrail or warning signs on the Blue Ridge Parkway fell within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Peterson v. United States
  673 F.2d 237· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the United States was negligent in flying a B-52 bomber at an unlawfully low altitude, interfering with the use of the plaintiff's farm and causing injury.
• 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.
• Kiiskila v. United States
  466 F.2d 626· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the claim was barred by the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, even if the discretion was abused.
• Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States
  823 F.2d 260· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 8×
• Pennbank & First Seneca Bank v. The United States
  779 F.2d 175· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government agencies' actions in deciding whether to disburse federal funds for a municipal sewer project were discretionary functions protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act, thus barring the banks' negligence claims.
• 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.
• Boston Edison Co. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
  423 F.2d 891· 1st Cir.· 1970-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exculpatory clause in the Army Corps of Engineers' permit was valid and precluded the United States' liability for negligence in dredging operations, as the Secretary of the Army had the authority to issue such a permit and the activity fell under a discre
• Builders Corp. OF Am. v. United States
  320 F.2d 425· 9th Cir.· 1963-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims arising from the exercise or performance of a discretionary function by a government employee are barred by sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Bess Galbraith v. United States & United States Dep't of Def.
  296 F.2d 631· 2d Cir.· 1961-12-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the United States was not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained by an independent contractor's employees due to explosions, as the government was not negligent in selecting the contractor and New York law does not impose a duty on the
• 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.
• Johnson v. United States
  949 F.2d 332· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Park Service's decisions regarding climbing regulations and rescue operations are shielded by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, thus barring the plaintiff's claims.
• K.W. Thompson Tool Co., Inc. v. United States
  836 F.2d 721· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the EPA's actions in issuing permits and initiating criminal prosecution were discretionary functions protected by the FTCA's discretionary function exception, thus barring the plaintiff's claims.
• In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. Gerald Hogan, M.D. v. The DOW Chem. Co.
  818 F.2d 210· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of Dr. Hogan's case for discovery abuse and affirmed summary judgments for the Hawaiian plaintiffs' personal injury claims, but remanded Mrs. Fraticelli's wrongful death claim against chemical companies and vacated her claim against the U.S.
• 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.
• Harr v. United States
  705 F.2d 500· D.C. Cir.· 1983-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the FAA's medical staff owed a duty to an applicant for medical certification to apply its rules carefully and that the discretionary function exception did not shield the FAA from liability for alleged negligence in failing to discover and disclose a disquali
• Garbarino v. United States
  666 F.2d 1061· 6th Cir.· 1981-12-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception barred claims based on the FAA's failure to promulgate specific crashworthiness regulations and its decision to delegate inspection duties to manufacturers.
• 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.
• Jordan v. Hudson
  879 F.2d 98· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the United States should be substituted as the defendant and affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the employees immune from liability.
• 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
• Littell v. United States
  191 F. Supp. 2d 1338· M.D. Fla.· 2002-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against the United States are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, as the investigative and prosecutorial decisions involved were discretionary and grounded in publ
• 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.
• Tracor/MBA, Inc. v. United States
  933 F.2d 663· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government inspectors' actions in performing safety inspections were discretionary functions protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act, barring Tracor's claim.
• 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.
• E. Ritter & Co. v. Dep't OF THE Army
  874 F.2d 1236· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's failure to maintain the flood control ditch banks, which caused erosion to adjacent land, constituted operational negligence not protected by the discretionary function exception or floodwater immunity, and affirmed the damages awarded.
• Lively v. United States
  870 F.2d 296· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's decisions regarding stockpiling and procuring asbestos, including the failure to warn or provide safety equipment, fell within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that the FTCA does not permit strict liabil
• Judy v. U.S. Dep't OF Labor
  864 F.2d 83· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception of the FTCA bars claims based on an agency's failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty.
• Frigard v. United States
  862 F.2d 201· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claims were barred by the misrepresentation and discretionary function exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Mrs. Lennell Wells Abraham v. United States
  465 F.2d 881· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an expert's opinion affidavit alleging operational mismanagement, without specifying the nature of the mismanagement or its causal link to the sonic boom, failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment under the Federal
• 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.
• 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.
• Woodman v. United States
  764 F. Supp. 1455· M.D. Fla.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Navy had a mandatory duty to segregate its waste, and the disposal of unauthorized materials like flammable solvents and paint thinners violated this duty, making the discretionary function exception inapplicable.
• Cole v. United States
  651 F. Supp. 221· N.D. Fla.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the government's decision not to apply safety regulations was a discretionary function protected by the FTCA, and claims based on misrepresentation or failure to warn were barred.
• Moody v. United States
  774 F.2d 150· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Farmers Home Administration's (FmHA) inspections and supervision were for the government's benefit, not the borrowers', precluding reasonable reliance under the Good Samaritan doctrine and negligence per se.
• Baxley v. United States
  767 F.2d 1095· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the FAA's decision not to immediately regulate ultralight aircraft, but rather to engage in rulemaking, constituted a discretionary function under the FTCA, barring the wrongful death suit.
• George v. United States & Fed. Aviation Admin. & Stol Aircraft Corp.
  703 F.2d 90· 4th Cir.· 1983-03-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the FAA's decision not to ban the use of a brass and steel fuel pick-up, despite potential corrosion issues, falls under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Ayala v. The United States
  980 F.2d 1342· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim based on an MSHA inspector's incorrect technical advice regarding wiring was not barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act because the advice was based on technical standards, not policy considerations.
• Cooper v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co.
  978 F.2d 602· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment for AAIC on the wrongful termination claim, as the bond language unambiguously allowed termination for any reason, and that Cooper's claims against the USDA and PSA were barred by sovereign immunity under th
• Foster v. United States
  923 F.2d 765· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Air Surgeon's decision to issue a special medical certificate was a discretionary function shielded by the FTCA, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Buchanan v. United States
  915 F.2d 969· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act shields the government from liability for claims arising from prison officials' decisions during a riot.
• Brice Brackin and Linda R. Brackin v. United States
  913 F.2d 858· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the ASCS committee's decision to use the historical method for reconstituting crop allotments fell under the discretionary function exception of the FTCA.
• Creek Nation Indian Hous. Auth. v. United States
  905 F.2d 312· 10th Cir.· 1990-02-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's conduct in designing military equipment falls within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that the plaintiff failed to identify any non-discretionary duties imposed on the government.
• Dischner v. United States
  866 F.2d 293· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal based on the discretionary function exception of the FTCA should be reconsidered in light of new precedent.