green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
17.5 score
“when a serviceman ... leave the base and exercise the right to be absent from regular duty, the serviceman attains a status much akin to being on furlough.”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lee v. United States
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
when a serviceman ... leave the base and exercise the right to be absent from regular duty, the serviceman attains a status much akin to being on furlough.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chris v. McKesson, Inc
Peirce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 351 (11th Cir. 1987); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (b), 2671–2680.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lance B. Koury v. Secretary, Department of the Army
The purpose of this test is to separate cases that may interfere with military discipline and command decisions from those that do not, id., and courts must pay particular attention to whether the service member’s claims will implicate civilian courts in conflicts involving the military structure or decisions, Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 352 (11th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lance B. Koury v. Secretary, Department of the Army
The purpose of this test is to separate cases that may interfere with military discipline and command decisions from those that do not, id., and courts must pay particular attention to whether the service member’s claims will implicate civilian courts in conflicts involving the military structure or decisions, Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 352 (11th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marvin K. Speigner, Jr. v. Willie A. Alexander
When undertaking such an analysis, we consider, “(1) the duty status of the service member, (2) the place where the injury occurred, and (3) the activity the serviceman was engaged in at the time of injury.” Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 352-53 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam); see also Whitley v. United States, 170 F.3d 1061, 1070 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marvin K. Speigner, Jr. v. Willie A. Alexander
When undertaking such an analysis, we consider, “(1) the duty status of the service member, (2) the place where the injury occurred, and 12 (3) the activity the serviceman was engaged in at the time of injury.” Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 352-53 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); see also Whitley v. United States, 170 F.3d 1061, 1070 (11th Cir. 1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitley v. United States
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
While the FTCA exempts recovery for military injuries or death resulting from combat service, see 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (j), 13 liability of the government under the FTCA for peacetime injuries to military members was a void that the Supreme Court filled with Feres and its progeny, see Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 351 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Tozer v. United States
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
While the FTCA exempts recovery for military injuries or death resulting from combat service, see 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (j), 13 liability of the government under the FTCA for peacetime injuries to military members was a void that the Supreme Court filled with Feres and its progeny, see Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 351 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott A. Taber v. Robert S. Maine, and United States of America
Parker v. United States, 611 F.2d 1007, 1013-15 (5th Cir.1980) (adopting a three-part test for deciding whether service-member’s activity is “incident to service”); Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 352-54 (11th Cir.1987) (applying Parker test).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott A. Taber v. Robert S. Maine, and United States of America
(2×)
Parker v. United States, 611 F.2d 1007, 1013-15 (5th Cir.1980) (adopting a three-part test for deciding whether servicemember's activity is "incident to service"); Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 352-54 (11th Cir.1987) (applying Parker test).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elaine M. Kitowski, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lee William Mirecki, Deceased v. United States
In applying Feres , this court has identified three factors to be considered in determining whether the particular activity of a member of a military service at the time of injury is “incident to service.” These factors are “(1) the duty status of *1529 the service member, (2) the place where the injury occurred, and (3) the activity the serviceman was engaged in at the time of the injury.” Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 353 (11th Cir.1987); Parker v. United States, 611 F.2d 1007, 1013 (5th Cir.1980). 1 In this case the district court held, “the undisputed facts establish tha…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Seals v. United States
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 352-354 (11th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited "see"
David E. Elliott, Jr., an Incapacitated Adult by and Through His Guardian, Barbara v. Elliott, Barbara v. Elliott, Individually v. United States
See Pierce, 813 F.2d at 353 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Milleville v. United States
See Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349 (11th Cir.1987). 1.Duty Status In determining the duty status of an injured serviceman, courts have generally distinguished their status between being on furlough or leave as compared to merely being released from one’s duties for the day.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rinelli v. United States
While the plaintiff here was not discharged from the Marine Corps and at some point could have been returned to active duty status if he was found to be physically fit, he “was not directly subject to military control; he was not under the compulsion of military orders; he was not performing any military mission.” Parker v. United States, 611 F.2d 1007, 1014 (11th Cir.1980); see Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349 (11th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. Morton Thiokol, Inc.
See Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349 (11th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schnitzer, Jeffrey v. White, Thomas E.
See, e.g., Persons v. United States, 925 F.2d 292 , 296 n. 6 (9th Cir.1991) (“The relevant distinction ... runs between service-persons who are on ‘active duty’ and those who have been discharged or are on furlough, not between ‘off-duty’ and ‘on-duty’ service-persons.”); Skees v. United States, 107 F.3d 421, 424 (6th Cir.1997) (same); see also Pierce v. United States, 813 F.2d 349, 353 (11th Cir.1987) (distinguishing between active duty and furlough but noting that, under certain circumstances, “pass” granting discretionary time off “akin” to furlough for duty status i…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic Straight Chiropractic Academic Standards Association, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation
v.
American Chiropractic Association, Inc., the Council on Chiropractic Education, Inc., National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, and Sid E. Williams
v.
American Chiropractic Association, Inc., the Council on Chiropractic Education, Inc., National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, and Sid E. Williams
86-8226.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 27, 1987.
Published
SHERMAN COLLEGE OF STRAIGHT CHIROPRACTIC; Straight
Chiropractic Academic Standards Association, Inc.,
a Pennsylvania Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION, INC., the Council on
Chiropractic Education, Inc., National Board of
Chiropractic Examiners, and Sid E.
Williams, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 86-8226.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
March 27, 1987.
John C. Butters, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Donald F. Walton, Atlanta, Ga., for Williams.
Hugh W. Gilbert, Atlanta, Ga., for Am. Chiropractic Assn.
Paul E. Goodspeed, H. Thomas Coghill, Denver, Colo. Sigmund Timberg, Washington, D.C., for Nat'l Bd. of Chiro. Exam.
C. Coleman Bird, Washington, D.C., for C. on Chiro. Ed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Orinda D. Evans, Judge.
Before TJOFLAT and HILL, Circuit Judges, and LYNNE[*], Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1
Oral argument was heard in this case in Atlanta, Georgia on November 19, 1986. The record, briefs, and arguments of counsel have been carefully considered. The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of the order of the Honorable Orinda D. Evans, dated and filed January 9, 1986, published as Sherman College v. American Chiropractic Association, Inc., 654 F.Supp. 716 (N.D.Ga.1987).
*
Honorable Seybourn H. Lynne, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation