Discretionary Function Exception (Ftca)

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

• Somerset Seafood Co. v. United States
  193 F.2d 631· 4th Cir.· 1951-12-19 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the United States was negligent in marking a wreck, and this negligence, combined with the vessel's faulty navigation, contributed to the sinking, requiring damages to be divided under maritime law.
• Gowdy v. United States
  412 F.2d 525· 6th Cir.· 1969-06-20 ·cited 61×
• In re Consolidated United States Atmospheric Testing Litigation v. Livermore Labs
  820 F.2d 982· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 2212 is constitutional and properly substituted the United States as the sole defendant in actions arising from atomic weapons testing, applying the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• 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.
• Jones v. United States
  536 F.2d 269· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that federal officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in investigating jury tampering, even if those actions led to a mistrial, and that the appellant failed to state a claim under the FTCA or § 1985(2).
• Joseph v. Off. OF the Consulate Gen. OF Nigeria
  830 F.2d 1018· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's waiver and commercial activity exceptions conferred jurisdiction over the landlord's breach of contract claims, and the tortious activity exception conferred jurisdiction over the tort claims against the foreign state and
• Falls Riverway Realty, Inc. v. The City OF Niagara Falls
  754 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the first cause of action for lack of jurisdiction and the second and third causes of action for failure to state a claim, remanding for further proceedings.
• Coates v. United States
  181 F.2d 816· 8th Cir.· 1950-05-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim for damages resulting from the government's modification of the Missouri River fell within the "discretionary function" exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction.
• Dupree v. United States
  264 F.2d 140· 3d Cir.· 1959-02-24 ·cited 28×
  The Federal Tort Claims Act does not permit claims for damages based on negligent interference with prospective economic advantage or future employment.
• Gwynith Raymer v. United States
  660 F.2d 1136· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged negligence of mine inspectors because Kentucky law would not impose liability on a private party under similar circumstances, particularly due to the lack of justifiable reliance and th
• State OF Md. v. Manor Real Est. & Tr. Co.
  176 F.2d 414· 4th Cir.· 1949-08-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Housing Authority's negligence in maintaining the premises, which led to a rat infestation and subsequent typhus outbreak, was a substantial factor in the tenant's death, and the government could not claim immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Lipka v. United States
  369 F.2d 288· 2d Cir.· 1966-12-02 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the negligence of a contractor, as the contractor was an independent contractor under New York law and the government did not exercise sufficient control over the details of the work.
• 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.
• Merklin v. United States
  788 F.2d 172· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception barred the 'good Samaritan' claim, but a claim based on the supplier of a dangerous chattel theory was viable and should not have been dismissed.
• Levon Brown v. United States
  486 F.2d 284· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the United States is liable under the FTCA for its own negligence in placing a prisoner in an inadequate facility, but not for the negligence of the county jailer or sheriff.
• Premachandra v. United States
  739 F.2d 392· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that civil service remedies are the exclusive means for federal employees to challenge wrongful termination decisions, barring a Federal Tort Claims Act suit.
• Miller v. United States
  583 F.2d 857· 6th Cir.· 1978-08-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Millers' claim under the Boundary Waters Treaty was properly dismissed, but their Fifth Amendment taking claim should be remanded for fact-finding on whether the US actions constituted a direct appropriation. The Federal Tort Claims Act claim for negligent
• 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.
• Owen v. The United States
  851 F.2d 1404· Fed. Cir.· 1988-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The navigational servitude does not provide a blanket exception to the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause for erosion damage to land outside the stream bed caused by government navigation improvements.
• Tuepker v. Farmers Home Administration
  708 F.2d 1329· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Farmers Home Administration's denial of a loan application based on collateral and repayment ability is an agency action committed to agency discretion by law, and thus not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also h
• Harris v. United States
  205 F.2d 765· 10th Cir.· 1953-07-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a single, isolated, and unintentional act causing damage to private property does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, but rather a tort for which the government is only consensually liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Harmsen v. Smith
  586 F.2d 156· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 12×
  Directors of a defunct national bank cannot maintain actions for indemnity against the United States for alleged negligence of the Comptroller of the Currency in conducting bank examinations.
• Toole v. United States
  588 F.2d 403· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-04 ·cited 11×
  The United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the death of an independent contractor's employee when the government had superior knowledge of a specific danger and failed to warn the contractor or employee.
• Mocklin v. The Orleans Levee Dist. & Its Bd. of Levee Comm'rs
  877 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 10×
  The United States Army Corps of Engineers is immune from liability under the Flood Control Act of 1928 for damages arising from flood control projects, including flotation channels created for construction access.
• 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.
• Grunnet v. United States
  730 F.2d 573· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
• Schmidt v. United States
  198 F.2d 32· 7th Cir.· 1952-07-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission's actions, as alleged, fell within the scope of its discretionary functions under the Securities Exchange Act, and thus were barred from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• 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.
• Wells v. United States
  851 F.2d 1471· D.C. Cir.· 1988-07-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the EPA's decision to conduct further study on lead pollution, rather than taking immediate remedial action, was protected by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, thus barring the plaintiffs' suit.
• In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. Philip J. Aguiar v. United States
  818 F.2d 194· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that appeals on behalf of a class are dismissed, and appeals on behalf of individuals are affirmed, due to procedural issues and the application of the Feres doctrine and discretionary function exception.
• Smith v. Robert R. Pena and the United States Army
  621 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not provide a remedy against the United States for an alleged violation of the Illinois Dram Shop Act because the Act requires negligence, while the Dram Shop Act imposes strict liability.
• Tiffany v. United States
  931 F.2d 271· 4th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that claims arising from military decisions regarding national defense, even if involving negligence, are barred by separation of powers principles and the discretionary function exception, rendering them nonjusticiable.
• COX v. United States
  881 F.2d 893· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The United States is shielded from liability under a state recreational use statute when sued under the FTCA, mirroring private landowner liability.
• Will v. United States
  849 F.2d 315· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Government's failure to warn was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury because the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and was willing to assume the risk.
• United States v. Hambleton et ux.
  185 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1950-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, even without physical impact, constitutes an "assault" within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act's exceptions, thus barring recovery against the United States.
• Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv.
  940 F.2d 704· D.C. Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that probationary postal employees have no contractual right to challenge their dismissals in federal court and cannot bring suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act for retaliatory dismissal.
• Industria Panificadora, S.A. v. United States
  957 F.2d 886· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the FTCA's discretionary function exception, barring the appellants' tort claims.
• First Nat'l Bank IN Brookings v. United States
  829 F.2d 697· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Bank failed to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the probation officer owed no legally enforceable duty to record or deliver the deed of trust, making any factual disputes immaterial.
• Preston v. United States
  696 F.2d 528· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's actions in withdrawing grain from a warehouse experiencing a shortage constituted conversion under Wisconsin law, and the discretionary function exception to the FTCA did not apply.
• 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.
• United States v. Prager
  251 F.2d 266· 5th Cir.· 1958-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the negligence of state National Guard members not in active federal service, nor for furnishing unequipped vehicles if the state guardsmen were responsible for proper equipment.
• Fazi v. United States
  935 F.2d 535· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception of the FTCA barred the claim, and the government owed no duty under New York law to protect an independent contractor's employee from third-party criminal acts.
• Wilson v. United States
  959 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that parole officers are not considered investigative or law enforcement officers under the FTCA, and thus the intentional tort exception applies to bar claims against them.
• Preston v. United States
  776 F.2d 754· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating damages for conversion, and that the plaintiffs' claim for loss of use of the converted grain was barred as prejudgment interest under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Lippman v. City of Miami
  622 F. Supp. 2d 1337· S.D. Fla.· 2008-07-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim was barred by sovereign immunity exceptions, specifically the detention of goods and discretionary function exceptions.
• Lebedinsky v. United States
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-06
  The court held that the action was properly removed under the Federal Tort Claims Act and that dismissal was required due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Coates v. United States Dep't of Just.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-03
  The court held that the FTCA negligence claim regarding the operation of the prison transport van may proceed against the United States, but claims for failure to secure with a seatbelt, medical negligence, and Bivens deliberate indifference are dismissed.
• Mid-South Holding Co., Inc. v. United States
  123 F. Supp. 2d 1330· M.D. Fla.· 1999-02-26
  The court held that the law enforcement exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act should be incorporated into the Suits in Admiralty Act, and thus sovereign immunity was not waived for the alleged damage to the vessel during a law enforcement search.
• Carley v. Wheeled Coach
  991 F.2d 1117· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-16
  The court held that the Boyle federal government contractor defense does not extend to nonmilitary government contracts, and that the Virgin Islands does not recognize a government contractor defense under its strict products liability law.
• U.S. Gold & Silver Invs., Inc. v. The United States ex rel. Dir.
  885 F.2d 620· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-15
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) failed because the complaint alleged violation of a federal statute, not a tort cognizable under state law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the claim against Aron