-
919 F.2d 1525·
11th Cir.·
1990-12-27
·cited 366×
The court held that a district court cannot dismiss a federal claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when that determination is intertwined with the merits of the claim and there is a dispute as to a material fact.
-
730 F.2d 842·
2d Cir.·
1984-03-02
·cited 53×
The court should have awarded prejudgment interest to the plaintiff on the $75,000 award.
-
652 F.2d 831·
9th Cir.·
1981-08-03
·cited 36×
Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the United States' conduct was willful or malicious, and whether the plaintiff was expressly invited onto the premises.
-
258 F.2d 465·
9th Cir.·
1958-06-30
·cited 30×
The court held that a soldier traveling on a permanent change of station is not acting within the scope of his employment under California law, and therefore the United States is not liable for his negligence during such travel.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
236 F.2d 649·
6th Cir.·
1956-09-14
·cited 18×
The court held that the Air Force personnel were not acting within the scope of their employment when they deviated from their training mission to fly to the pilot's hometown, thus the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
-
622 F.2d 8·
1st Cir.·
1980-05-28
·cited 14×
The court held that the driver, employed by a government contractor, was not an employee of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the government did not exercise day-to-day control over the contractor's operations.
-
30 F.4th 1259·
11th Cir.·
2022-04-12
·cited 12×
The court held that the USPS complied with 39 C.F.R. § 912.9(a) by sending the denial letter to the most recently identified legal representative for the administrative claims, rendering the plaintiffs' FTCA claims untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
-
645 F.2d 1128·
D.C. Cir.·
1981-04-01
·cited 12×
The United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the negligence of Lorton Reformatory officials because Lorton operates as an independent contractor, not a federal agency, and the federal government lacks the requisite day-to-day control over its operations.
-
786 F.2d 237·
6th Cir.·
1986-03-24
·cited 10×
A judgment against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligence bars any subsequent Bivens action against government employees for the same subject matter, even if the claims are distinct.
-
426 F.2d 281·
5th Cir.·
1970-05-19
·cited 10×
The court held that the Secretary of Commerce's approval of highway plans falls within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
-
288 F.2d 11·
9th Cir.·
1961-03-27
·cited 10×
The court held that the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) provides the exclusive remedy for federal employees injured during their employment, precluding claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for any injury, even if not fully compensated under FECA.
-
218 F.2d 12·
9th Cir.·
1954-12-21
·cited 10×
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for the death of a federal employee, barring suits under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
-
171 F.2d 846·
4th Cir.·
1949-01-03
·cited 10×
The court held that under Maryland law, a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser or licensee to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury unless the landowner has actual knowledge of the person's peril.
-
928 F.2d 951·
10th Cir.·
1991-03-20
·cited 9×
The court held that the National Park Service's decision not to place additional warning signs on the Balconies Cave Trail was a protected discretionary function, as it was part of the overall policy decision to maintain the area in its wilderness state.
-
904 F.2d 719·
D.C. Cir.·
1990-06-08
·cited 8×
The court held that the statutes and regulations governing administrative tort claims arising in foreign countries do not, standing alone, create a protected interest that implicates the requisites of due process.
-
823 F.2d 260·
8th Cir.·
1987-07-15
·cited 8×
-
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.
-
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.
-
786 F.2d 964·
9th Cir.·
1986-04-10
·cited 7×
The United States is not liable under the FTCA for the negligence of a military member when the member is on leave and traveling for personal reasons, even if the military retains some general control over the member's activities.
-
945 F.2d 1115·
9th Cir.·
1991-09-27
·cited 6×
California's recreational use statute immunizes landowners from liability for injuries sustained during recreational activities on their property, regardless of whether the property is open to the general public.
-
830 F.2d 54·
5th Cir.·
1987-10-21
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court did not err in imputing the husband's negligence to his wife or in its factual findings regarding damages, but erred in failing to award post-judgment interest against the Postal Service.
-
661 F.2d 882·
10th Cir.·
1981-10-20
·cited 6×
The court held that a mail carrier operating under a Transportation Services Contract with the Postal Service was an independent contractor, not an employee of the United States, for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
-
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.
-
891 F.2d 567·
5th Cir.·
1990-01-10
·cited 4×
The court held that the summary judgment evidence did not establish as a matter of law that the Corps was the plaintiff's statutory employer under Louisiana law.
-
720 F.2d 372·
4th Cir.·
1983-11-01
·cited 4×
The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he knew of his injury and its cause more than two years before filing suit.
-
703 F.2d 246·
7th Cir.·
1983-03-23
·cited 4×
The court held that the post office did not assume a duty to keep the public sidewalk clear of gravel, and thus was not liable for injuries resulting from a slip and fall on the sidewalk.
-
619 F.2d 16·
8th Cir.·
1980-04-21
·cited 4×
The court held that the plaintiffs' FTCA claim was barred by the statute of limitations because the cause of action accrued in 1969 and was not timely filed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
959 F.2d 834·
9th Cir.·
1992-03-26
·cited 2×
The court held that the appeal was timely, the Bivens claim related back to the original complaint under California law, the FTCA judgment did not bar the Bivens claim, and the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, precluding judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
-
953 F.2d 1188·
10th Cir.·
1992-01-13
·cited 2×
An improper view of a scene by a judge without notice to parties is reversible error unless it can be shown to have had no effect on the decision.
-
760 F.2d 366·
1st Cir.·
1985-04-29
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff's activity of drinking coffee while visiting a national park constituted a 'recreational activity' under Maine law, thus limiting the government's duty of care.
-
722 F.2d 387·
8th Cir.·
1983-12-01
·cited 2×
The court held that Major Loper was acting within the scope of his employment under Missouri law because his travel orders imposed a strict deadline, implying government control over his movements.
-
403 F. Supp. 2d 1182·
S.D. Fla.·
2005-11-30
·cited 1×
The court held that the United States was liable under the FTCA for the negligence of its employees and Dr. Kushner, finding that Dr. Kushner was an employee for FTCA purposes and that his negligence, along with that of military personnel, caused the infant's injuries.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-12-08
The court held that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for attorneys' fees and non-taxable costs under the FTCA or EAJA, even when state law would otherwise allow such an award.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-08-03
The court held that a treating physician's causation opinion may be admissible if formed during treatment, but if it appears litigation-driven, a full expert report is required. The court also found that a plaintiff cannot amend their administrative claim after the agency issues
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-07-09
The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate expert reports under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), thus preventing him from proving causation and actual harm, warranting summary judgment for the defendant.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-13
The court held that the United States is immune from liability under the Florida Recreational Use Statute, and therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
-
991 F.2d 300·
6th Cir.·
1993-02-23
The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the correctional officer acted outside the scope of his employment and that the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of the duty of care owed to her as a prisoner.
-
984 F.2d 124·
4th Cir.·
1993-01-21
The court held that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act did not bar claims where the government agency violated specific regulations governing vaccine release.
-
983 F.2d 950·
9th Cir.·
1993-01-13
The court held that the appellant's claim was not barred by the FTCA's misrepresentation or interference with contract exceptions, as the alleged tortious wrong was the negligent processing of a security clearance, not the communication of information or interference with contrac
-
910 F.2d 477·
8th Cir.·
1990-08-01
The United States, as a statutory employer under Missouri law, can assert the exclusive remedy provision of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law as a defense to a negligence action brought against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
-
405 F.2d 862·
5th Cir.·
1968-12-30
The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous, leading to the affirmance of the judgment.
-
294 F.2d 920·
D.C. Cir.·
1961-07-11
The court held that the dispute regarding the corporal's status under the NATO Agreement is a matter for intergovernmental settlement, not judicial review.
-
246 F.2d 424·
4th Cir.·
1957-07-01
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, as there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer government responsibility.