Russell Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353 (1st Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Russell Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353 (1st Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Velez v. United States Ex Rel. Department of the Army (prd, 1995-06-27) · Strongest negative: Johnson v. United States (ca11, 1985-03-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1 38 U.S.C. § 401 cited 1× in this case · 9 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Johnson v. United States (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Torres v. United States, 621 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir.1980) (Feres doctrine bars FTCA suit "even in the absence of a clear nexus between the injury and military discipline") (citing Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353 (1st Cir.1971)); Uptegrove v. United States, 600 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1044 , 100 S.Ct. 732 , 62 L.Ed.2d 730 (1980); United States v. Lee, 400 F.2d 558 (9th Cir.1968), rev'g 261 F.Supp. 252 (C.D.Cal.1966), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1053 , 89 S.Ct. 691 , 21 L.Ed.2d 695 (1969) Sound as this approach might be, we do not feel it is necessary in this instan…
discussed Cited "but see" Davis v. United States Dept. of Army
D. Maryland · 1985 · signal: but see · confidence high
Thus, some federal courts have suggested that the most persuasive justification for the Feres doctrine is the potential impact of civil suits on military discipline and interests, e.g., Johnson, 704 F.2d at 1436, 1440 , quoting United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 159-62 , 83 S.Ct. 1850, 1856-58 , 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1963) (incident to service exception “best explained” by disciplinary rationale), and they have accordingly tailored their inquiry to determine “whether or not a service member’s activities at the time of injury are of the sort that could harm the disciplinary system if litig…
discussed Cited "but see" Johnson v. United States (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Torres v. United States, 621 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir.1980) (Feres doctrine bars FTCA suit "even in the absence of a clear nexus between the injury and military discipline”) (citing Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353 (1st Cir.1971)); Uptegrove v. United States, 600 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir.1979), ce rt. denied, 444 U.S. 1044 , 100 S.Ct. 732 , 62 L.Ed.2d 730 (1980); United States v. Lee, 400 F.2d 558 (9th Cir.1968), rev’g 261 F.Supp. 252 (C.D.Cal.1966), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1053 , 89 S.Ct. 691 , 21 L.Ed.2d 695 (1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Velez v. United States Ex Rel. Department of the Army
D.P.R. · 1995 · confidence medium
Plaintiff contends that “the adjudication of this case will not cause the court to consider the propriety of any command decision.” Nevertheless, the Complaint is barred by the Feres doctrine because “Feres required no nexus between discipline and injury.” Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353, 354 (1st Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Steven Robert Maw v. United States
1st Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
But see Torres v. United States, 621 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir.1980) {Feres applies even absent “a clear nexus”); Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353, 354 (1st Cir.1971) (“no nexus” required).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re \Agent Orange\" Product Liability Litigation"
E.D.N.Y · 1980 · confidence medium
Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950) (serviceman died when barracks he was sleeping in burned due to defective heating unit), 22 nor subject to military discipline, Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353, 354 (CA1 1971) (no “connection between the activity which injured plaintiff and [military] discipline” necessary). 23 Professor Jayson concisely and fairly synthesizes the “incident to service” cases as follows: The duty status of the serviceman-claimant is of particular significance in determining whether the injury or loss was incident to service.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Levin v. United States
D. Mass. · 1975 · confidence medium
We see nó occasion to depart therefrom, even if we could.” Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353, 354 (1st Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Camassar v. United States
D. Conn. · 1975 · confidence medium
If questionable to remark simply that “Feres required no nexus between discipline and injury”, Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353, 354 (1 Cir. 1971), the more commonly articulated focus on whether the serviceman was in some sense subject to military control or discipline at the time of injury, see, e. g., Mills v. Tucker, 499 F.2d 866, 867-868 (9 Cir. 1974), see also Herreman v. United States, 476 F.2d 234 (7 Cir. 1973), Hale v. United States, 452 F.2d 668 (6 Cir. 1971), is perhaps better understood as a test of remoteness between injury and the injured person’s military status, see Kni…
discussed 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
Accord, Harten v. Coons, 502 F.2d 1363, 1365 (10th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 963 , 95 S.Ct. 1354 , 43 L.Ed.2d 441 (1975); Henninger v. United States, 473 F.2d 814, 816 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 819 , 94 S.Ct. 43 , 38 L.Ed.2d 51 (1973); Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353, 354 (1st Cir. 1971).
cited Cited "see" Jose D. Montero Torres v. United States
1st Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353 (1st Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited "see" Watkins v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D. Ga. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353, 354 (1st Cir. 1971); United States v. Lee, 400 F.2d 558, 563-64 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1053 , 89 S.Ct. 691 , 21 L.Ed.2d 695 (1969).
cited Cited "see" Kennedy v. Maginnis
D. Mass. · 1975 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353 (1st Cir. 1971).
cited Cited "see" Richard v. Henninger v. United States
9th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hall v. United States, 1 Cir., 1971, 451 F.2d 353, 354 ; Coffey v. United States, S.D.Cal., 1971, 324 F.Supp. 1087, 1088 , aff’d. per curiam 9 Cir., 1972, 455 F.2d 1380 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aleck Alexander, Cross-Appellee v. United States of America, Cross-Appellant
8th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Hall v. United States, 451 F.2d 353 (CA1, 1971); Lowe v. United States, 440 F.2d 452 (CA5), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 833 , 92 S.Ct. 83 , 30 L.Ed.2d 64 (1971); Shults v. United States, 421 F.2d 170 (CA5, 1969); United States v. Lee, 400 F.2d 558 (CA9, 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1053 , 89 S.Ct. 691 , 21 L.Ed.2d 695 (1969); Buckingham v. United States, 394 F.2d 483 (CA4, 1962); Bailey v. DeQuevedo, 375 F.2d 72 (CA3), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 923 , 88 S.Ct. 247 , 19 L.Ed.2d 274 (1967); United States v. Carroll, 369 F.2d 618 (CA8, 1966); Chambers v. United States, 357 F.2d 224 (CA8, 1966…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Russell HALL, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, Appellee
71-1230.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Nov 18, 1971.
451 F.2d 353
Michael E. Mone, Boston, Mass., with whom Schneider & Reilly, Inc., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for plaintiff-appellant., Robert M. Feinson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herbert F. Travers, Jr., U. S. Atty. and Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on brief, for defendant-appellee.
Aldrich, Breitenstein, McENTEE, Per Curiam.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appellant’s Federal Tort Claims Act complaint for malpractice injury incurred in an army hospital while he was on active service was dismissed on the authority of Feres v. United States, 1950, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152. Under the Feres doctrine, the government is not liable under the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), “for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.” 340 U.S. at 146, 71 S.Ct. at 159. Plaintiff seeks to distinguish, or more exactly, asks us not to follow, that case on the ground that the various rationale supporting it have been cut away, if not eliminated. We may assume that to some extent plaintiff is correct, but we think too facile his claim that there can be no valid economic reason for allowing recovery by a discharged soldier for malpractice in a veterans hospital, and denying recovery for such injury while on active duty. Congress may well wish to recognize one standard for veterans’ benefits, and to provide a different package for in-service injury and disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

Even more basic, we reject plaintiff’s contention that Feres is inapplicable in any case where no military discipline was involved — “there must [he says] be a rational connection between the activity which injured plaintiff and the discipline.” Even though there may have been no disciplinary element in this ease, the much abused invocation of Pandora’s Box will surely become appropriate if plaintiff’s principle were to be established. If every injury “aris[ing] out of or * * * incident to service,” 340 U.S. at 146, 71 S.Ct. at 159, must invite inquiry, not only would the difficulties of what, legally, would constitute discipline-connected be substantial, but the Armed Services would be faced with maintaining a claims department. Such avenues should be opened — if they are to be — by Congress. Feres required no nexus between discipline and injury. We see no occasion to depart therefrom, even if we could. For recent decisions resisting similar importunities, see Buckingham v. United States, 4 Cir., 1968, 394 F.2d 483; Shults v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 421 F.2d 170; Lowe v. United States, 5 Cir., 1971, 440 F.2d 452, cert. denied, 1971, 404 U.S. 833, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 64, 1971.

Affirmed.