green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.0 score
“if the tort claims act is to have the corpuscular vitality to cover anything more than automobile accidents in which government officials are driving, the federal courts must reject an absolutist interpretation____”
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bradley v. United States
if the tort claims act is to have the corpuscular vitality to cover anything more than automobile accidents in which government officials are driving, the federal courts must reject an absolutist interpretation____
cited
Cited "see"
Crenshaw v. United States
See Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
TPI International Airways, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration (In Re TPI International Airways, Inc.)
See Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 246 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
John N. Begay and His Wife, Mable Lee Begay Kee Atcitty Bob B. Begay and His Wife, Mae Begay v. United States of America, Phillip Anderson, Marry John Badoni, Hoskie R. Barton, Clyde Begay, Harvey Lee Begay and Herbert N. Begay v. United States
See generally Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967); Note, The Discretionary Function Exception: Is it a Bar to Federal Jurisdiction?, 1983 Utah L.Rev. 117 (1983); Note, Federal Tort Claims Act: The Development and Application of the Discretionary Function Exemption, 13 Cum.L.Rev. 535 (1982/1983) In recognition of the problems that surround the application of the discretionary function exception, and in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Varig, we believe that the proper approach to determining when the ex…
discussed
Cited "see"
Begay v. United States
See generally Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967); Note, The Discretionary Function Exception: Is it a Bar to Federal Jurisdiction?, 1983 Utah L.Rev. 117 (1983); Note, Federal Tort Claims Act: The Development and Application of the Discretionary Function Exemption, 13 Cum.
cited
Cited "see"
Aronson v. United States
See Smith v. U.S., 375 F.2d 243, 246-47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
Heywood v. United States
See Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 245-48 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
Floyd A. Wright v. United States of America, and Nathan Fletcher, Malcolm S. Segal and Does I Through Xxiii
See Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
L. Patrick Gray, III v. Griffin Bell
See Payton v. United States, 679 F.2d 475, 479 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc) (“If strictly followed, [the] ... language [of the FTCA] would exempt ... all but the most fortuitous events, for ‘[ujnless government officials (at no matter what echelon) make their choices by flipping coins, their acts involve discretion in making decisions.’ ”) (quoting Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 246 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967)).
cited
Cited "see"
Leona Bergmann v. United States
See Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ralph W. Staton v. United States
See Downs v. United States, supra, at 997 (citing Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 246 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967)); Griffin v. United States, 500 F.2d 1059, 1064 (3d Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Authority of the Attorney General to Withdraw Claims for Gratuitous Payments Made by the Federal Government Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
See, Smith v. United States, 375 F. (2d) 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1965), cert, denied, 389 U.S. 841 (1967); Cox v. United States, supra. Given this bacFgrourid'concerning the discretion of the Attorney General, we next consider whether the Attorney General’s power to withdraw the claim has been limited by the Indian Claims Com mission Act.
cited
Cited "see"
Holland v. United States
See Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243,248 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967). 11.
cited
Cited "see"
Downs v. United States
See Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 246 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
cited
Cited "see"
Downs v. United States
See Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 246 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
Estate of Herman Kahn, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Joseph E. Brooks and Alice K. Brooks v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Monroe J. Weintraub and Carol Weintraub v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See, Charles Town Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 372 F.2d 415, 422 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 69 , 19 L.Ed.2d 104 (1967). 18 The judgement of the Tax Court is affirmed on each appeal before this court. * Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation 1 The Tax Court as a result of these findings determined that there were overpayments by taxpayers, Mr. and Mrs. Grober, Mr. and Mrs. Brooks and Mr. and Mrs. Weintraub who had been taxed as partners of Kahn.
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Kahn v. Commissioner
See, Charles Town Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 372 F.2d 415, 422 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 69 , 19 L.Ed.2d 104 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barton Mines Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Cross-Appellant
See Solite Corp. v. United States, 375 F.2d 684 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 70 , 19 L.Ed.2d 104 (1967); Iowa Limestone Co. v. United States, 365 F.2d 63 (8 Cir. 1966); United States v. Light Aggregates, Inc., 343 F.2d 429 (8 Cir. 1965); Morton Salt Co. v. United States, 316 F.2d 931 , 161 Ct.Cl. 640 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 951 , 84 S.Ct. 442 , 11 L.Ed.2d 312 (1963); Virginia Greenstone Co. v. United States, 308 F.2d 669 (4 Cir. 1982); Riddell v. Victorville Lime Rock Co., 292 F.2d 427 (9 Cir. 1961); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Halquist, 291 F.2d 49 (7 Cir.), cert. …
cited
Cited "see"
W. Braun Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See Charles Town, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 372 F.2d 415 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 69 , 19 L.Ed.2d 104 (1967); J.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ochran v. United States
See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967). 4 The Court sympathizes with Ochran for the injuries she has sustained.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
B & F Trawlers, Inc. And International Bank, N.A. v. United States
Compare Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 247-48 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967) (decisions on when, where and how to prosecute are shielded by discretionary function).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Michael J. Sutton and John Wiley Mitchell v. United States
(2×)
Compare Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967) (decisions on when, where and against whom to prosecute are discretionary under Sec. 2680(a)); Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 505 (D.C.Cir.1983) ("Although the concepts of 'discretion' in official immunity law and under the FTCA are not of identical scope, they are similar and may have a common origin").
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cole v. United States
Downs v. United States, 522 F.2d 990, 997 (6th Cir.1975); See also Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 246 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gail Collins v. United States
(2×)
See also Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 246 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robertson v. City of Topeka
(2×)
See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 389 U.S. 841 (1967); Luizzo v. United States, 508 F. Supp. 923 (E.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoston v. Silbert
See also Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967) (“The discretion of the Attorney General in choosing whether to prosecute or not to prosecute, or to abandon a prosecution already started, is absolute.” Id. at 247 .) Additionally, prosecutors are immune from liability predicated on a decision not to institute a criminal proceeding.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clemente v. United States
See also Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (C.A. 5,1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967); Goodwill Industries of El Paso v. United States, 218 F.2d 270 (C.A. 5, 1954); Cf. Gercey v. United States, supra (decided under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 741 et seq., wherein it was held that in the absence of a specific Congressional mandate, there exists no duty upon the Coast Guard to establish a follow up system to prevent the use by the public of a vessel which the Coast Guard refused to certify, and which it knew was unsafe). 26 In juxtaposition Pla…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Albert Roelofs, Jr. v. United States of America, the Travelers Insurance Company, Intervenor
Dalehite v. United States, 1952, 346 U.S. 15 , 73 S.Ct. 956 , 97 L.Ed. 1427 ; see also, Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 375 F.2d 243 , cert. den., 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 . 17 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bill R. Hunter, D/B/A the Courier
See, e. g., Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841 , 88 S.Ct. 76 , 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Town, Inc.
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
No. 265.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 1967.
George T. Altman for petitioner., Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Gilbert E. Andrews and Albert J. Beveridge III for respondent.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.