Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Meredith Morris v. Michael Thompson (ca5, 2017-03-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Meredith Morris v. Michael Thompson
5th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir. 1969) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zuress v. Donley
9th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Hodge, 107 F.3d at 710 (intramilitary immunity doctrine precludes suit brought by active-duty military personnel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(e)); Mier, 57 F.3d at 751 (intra-military immunity doctrine preludes suits by dual status employees under Title VII); Stauber, 837 F.2d at 401 (intra-military immunity precludes common law tort suit by dual status employee); Gonzalez v. Department of Army, 718 F.2d 926, 929 (9th Cir.1983) (intra-military immunity doctrine precludes suit under Title VII); Mollnow v. Carlton, 716 F.2d 627, 631 (9th Cir.1983) (intra-military immunity precludes mili…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wake v. United States
2d Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Quintana v. United States, 997 F.2d 711, 712 (10th Cir.1993) (rejecting argument that "the Feres doctrine does not bar [plaintiff's] claim because she was on reserve status, rather than active duty status"); Duffy v. United States, 966 F.2d 307, 312 (7th Cir.1992) ("status as a reservist ... unquestionably is a military status"); Norris v. Lehman, 845 F.2d 283, 286-287 (11th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (barring NROTC instructor's age-discrimination claim); Estate of Martinelli v. United States Department of the Army, 812 F.2d 872, 873 (3d Cir.) (reservist's military status barred FTCA claim for…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wake v. United States
2d Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
The dispositive inquiry, however, is not whether [the plaintiff] was lawfully on active duty at the time his claims arose, but whether he ‘stood in the sort of relationship to the [Air Force] at the time of [the incidents in question] that those incidents arose out of activity incident to service’ ”); Sanchez III, 878 F.2d at 637 ; Norris, 845 F.2d at 287 ; Mattos, 412 F.2d at 794; Carroll, 369 F.2d at 620-21 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schoemer v. United States
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Stauber v. Cline, 837 F.2d 395, 399 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 488 U.S. 817, 109 S.Ct. 55 , 102 L.Ed.2d 33 (1988); Estate of Martinelli v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 812 F.2d 872, 873 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 822 , 108 S.Ct. 82 , 98 L.Ed.2d 44 (1987); Anderson v. United States, 724 F.2d 608, 610 (8th Cir.1983); Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marsha L. Lutz v. Secretary of the Air Force, and Gerald L. Ivory, Manuel E. Ferdin, and United States of America
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See e.g., Stauber v. Cline, 837 F.2d 395 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 817 , 109 S.Ct. 55 , 102 L.Ed.2d 33 (1988); Trerice v. Pedersen, 769 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir.1985); Mollnow v. Carlton, 716 F.2d 627, 628 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100 , 104 S.Ct. 1595 , 80 L.Ed.2d 126 (1984); Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969). 5 Thus, if Major Lutz’s injuries arose out of or were in the course of activity incident to service, then the Feres doctrine would preclude her recovery on either her Bivens claims or her common law tort claims.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jane J. Smith, of the Estate of Michael J. Smith v. United States of America, Lawrence B. Mulloy
11th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969) (parents of deceased soldier barred from suing fellow servicemember); Bailey v. DeQuevedo, 375 F.2d 72, 74 (3d Cir.1966) (medical malpractice suit against army physician brought under state law barred), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 923 , 88 S.Ct. 247 , 19 L.Ed.2d 274 (1967). 4 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Franklin L. Miller v. Thomas R. Newbauer Jerry S. Klos William A. McKinnon Kenneth J. Sharp and Walter Herbert
9th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Id. at 794.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jordan v. Hanks
W.D. Mo. · 1988 · confidence medium
Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deckinger v. Castro-Reyes
D. Maryland · 1988 · confidence medium
Estate of Martinelli v. United States, 812 F.2d 872, 873 (3rd Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 82 , 98 L.Ed.2d 44 (1987); Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969); United States v. Carroll, 369 F.2d 618, 620 (8th Cir.1966); Monarch Insurance Co. v. United States, 511 F.Supp. 201, 203 (E.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William Trerice v. Dan A. Pedersen, Captain, U.S. Navy, Commanding Officer, Uss Ranger
9th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Mollnow v. Carlton, 716 F.2d 627, 628 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1595 , 80 L.Ed.2d 126 (1984); Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969); Bailey v. Van Buskirk, 345 F.2d 298, 298 (9th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1205 , 16 L.Ed.2d 210 (1966); see also Tirrill v. McNamara, 451 F.2d 579, 579 (9th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hefley v. Textron, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Stanley v. Central Intelligence Agency, 639 F.2d 1146, 1152 (5th Cir.1981); Hass v. United States, 518 F.2d 1138, 1143 (4th Cir.1975); Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969); Bailey v. DeQuevedo, 375 F.2d 72, 73-74 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 923 , 88 S.Ct. 247 , 19 L.Ed.2d 274 (1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tommy L. Hefley, Ronald G. Wood, and James A. Popplewell v. Textron, Inc. And Bell Helicopter Textron, Third-Party Defendants v. United States of America, Kansas Army National Guard and Its Adjutant General Major General Edward R. Fry, Individually, and the State of Kansas, Third Party
3rd Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Stanley v. Central Intelligence Agency, 639 F.2d 1146, 1152 (5th Cir.1981); Hass v. United States, 518 F.2d 1138, 1143 (4th Cir.1975); Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969); Bailey v. DeQuevedo, 375 F.2d 72, 73-74 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 923 , 88 S.Ct. 247 , 19 L.Ed.2d 274 (1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomason v. Sanchez
D.N.J. · 1975 · confidence medium
Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1969). *506 “As in Feres , the availability of compensation for injuries incurred in military service renders . . . (judicial) intrusion unnecessary.” Id. at 794.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jon Edward Hass, for the Sole Use and Benefit of the United States of America, and Jon Edward Hass, Individually v. United States of America
4th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir. 1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roach v. Shields
E.D. Pa. · 1974 · confidence medium
Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 141-144 , 71 S.Ct. 153, 157-158 , 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950) ; Tirrill v. McNamara, 451 F.2d 579 (9th Cir., 1971); Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir. 1969); Bailey v. DeQuevedo, 375 F.2d 72, 74 (3rd Cir., 1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 923 , 88 S.Ct. 247 , 19 L.Ed.2d 274 (1967); Bailey v. Van Buskirk, 345 F.2d 298 (9th Cir., 1965), cert. den. 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1205 , 16 L.Ed.2d 210 (1966); Callaway v. Garber, 289 F.2d 171 (9th Cir., 1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 874 , 82 S.Ct. 120 , 7 L.Ed.2d 76 (1961); Sellers v. McCrane, 55 F.R.D. 466, 470, n. …
cited Cited "see" Watson v. Clark
D. Nev. · 1989 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793 (9th Cir.1969).
discussed Cited "see" ESTATE OF
3rd Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam) (court stated, without further discussion, that, "[t]he rationale of Feres applies with equal force to reservists."); United States v. Carroll, 369 F.2d 618, 620 (8th Cir.1966) ("[t]here is no doubt that the Feres decision applies also to reservists."); accord O'Brien v. United States, 192 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1951); Layne v. United States, 295 F.2d 433, 434-36 (7th Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 990 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 527 (1962) (widow of Indiana National Guardsman fatally injured while on duty as part of Reser…
discussed Cited "see" Estate of Martinelli v. United States
3rd Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam) (court stated, without further discussion, that, “[t]he rationale of Feres applies with equal force to reservists.”); United States v. Carroll, 369 F.2d 618, 620 (8th Cir.1966) (“[t]here is no doubt that the Feres decision applies also to reservists.”); accord O’Brien v. United States, 192 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1951); Layne v. United States, 295 F.2d 433, 434-36 (7th Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 990 , 82 S.Ct. 605 , 7 L.Ed.2d 527 (1962) (widow of Indiana National Guardsman fatally injured while on duty as par…
cited Cited "see" Trerice v. Summons
4th Cir. · 1985 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793 (9th Cir.1969).
cited Cited "see" William Trerice, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul Anthony Trerice, Deceased v. Daryl L. Summons, William Trerice, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul Anthony Trerice, Deceased v. Daryl L. Summons
4th Cir. · 1985 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793 (9th Cir.1969).
cited Cited "see" Carl J. Mollnow v. Paul K. Carlton
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Mattos v. United States, 412 F.2d 793 (9th Cir.1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clarence E. Mattos, Sr., and Clara Mattos
v.
United States of America, John J. Vaughn, Newton Wakeman, William Hickey, Captain Tucker, Doe I Through Doe Xi
22473_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 3, 1969.
412 F.2d 793
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

412 F.2d 793

Clarence E. MATTOS, Sr., and Clara Mattos, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, John J. Vaughn, Newton Wakeman, William Hickey, Captain Tucker, Doe I through Doe XI, Respondents.

No. 22473.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

June 3, 1969.

Daniel J. Weston, of Friedman & Collard, West Sacramento, Cal., for appellant.

William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Morton Hollander, Robert V. Zener, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., John P. Hyland, U. S. Atty., William B. Shubb, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES, MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~793]1

Appellants brought suit in a California State court for damages suffered as a result of the death of their son. While on weekend military reserve duty, he was killed when a military truck, in which he was riding, overturned. The complaint charged negligent operation of the motor vehicle and named as defendants the United States, the operator of the vehicle and officers in command of the unit. Suit was removed to the United States District Court by the defendants under the Federal Drivers Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d), and, as a suit against an officer of the United States acting under color of office, under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). The Government's motion for dismissal as to all defendants was granted and this appeal followed.

2

Dismissal of suit against the United States was based on Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), which holds the United States not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to or death of servicemen resulting from the performance of duties in the line of military service. Appellants seek to distinguish that case upon the ground that the serviceman there was in active service, while in this case their son was engaged as a reservist on weekend drill. We find no merit in the distinction. United States v. Carroll, 369 F.2d 618 (8th Cir. 1966); O'Brien v. United States, 192 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1951); Drumgoole v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., 170 F. Supp. 824 (E.D.Va.1959). The rationale of Feres applies with equal force to reservists.

3

Dismissal of suit against the individual defendants was based on Bailey v. Van Buskirk, 345 F.2d 298 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 383 U.S. 948, 86 S.Ct. 1205, 16 L.Ed.2d 210 (1966), holding that one soldier may not sue another for injuries resulting from acts performed in line of duty. Appellants seek to distinguish that case in that there suit was brought against an officer of superior rank, where as here the deceased soldier and the driver were of equal rank. We regard the distinction as without merit. It is judicial intrusion into the area of military performance that is sought to be avoided. As in Feres the availability of compensation for injuries incurred in military service renders such intrusion unnecessary.

4

Finally appellants contend that since there is no remedy against the United States, the exclusivity of federal jurisdiction under the Federal Drivers Act does not apply and the case should have been returned to the state court. We have recently held to the contrary in Van Houten v. Ralls, 411 F.2d 940 (9th Cir., 1969).

[*~794]5

Judgment affirmed.