Steven D. Willis v. Edward J. Craig, 555 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Steven D. Willis v. Edward J. Craig, 555 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kenneth Lake v. Ohana Military Communities (ca9, 2021-09-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Lake v. Ohana Military Communities (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
Federico (and the district court by adoption), however, misread our precedent in Durham, 445 F.3d at 1250 , and Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam), to broadly apply “to cases of full concurrent jurisdiction as well.” Federico, 901 F. Supp. 2d at 666 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Earth Island Institute v. Crystal Geyser Water Company
N.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
Wash. 2017), aff’d, 738 21 F. App’x 554 (9th Cir. 2018) (where plaintiff did not seek relief for contamination of federal 22 territories and would have no standing to do so, court was “satisfied” that none of plaintiff’s 23 claims arose on federal enclaves);2 see also Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 725 (9th Cir. 1977) 24 (district court did not have jurisdiction where accident did not occur on federal enclave).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Washington v. Monsanto Co.
W.D. Wash. · 2017 · confidence medium
Land acquired by the federal government with the consent of a state legislature “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” becomes a “federal enclave.” Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (quoting U.S. Const. Art.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benavidez v. Sandia National Laboratories
D.N.M. · 2016 · confidence medium
Workers, AFL-CIO, 646 F.2d 1057, 1059-60 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1106 , 102 S.Ct. 3483 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1982); Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir.1977); Macomber v. Bose, 401 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir.1968); Stokes v. Adair, 265 F.2d 662, 665 (4th Cir.1959); Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d at 124-25 )).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Howell
D. Kan. · 1994 · confidence medium
Cases hold that “personal injury actions arising from incidents on federal enclaves may support district court jurisdiction under § 1331.” Fung v. Abex Corp., 816 F.Supp. 569, 571 (N.D.Cal.1992) citing, Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir.1977) and Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.1952).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fung v. Abex Corp.
N.D. Cal. · 1992 · confidence medium
Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir.1977); Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.1952).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marjorie Ann Shields v. United States National Bank of Oregon, a National Banking Corporation
9th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1977).
cited Cited "see" County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
9th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See 555 F.2d 724, 725 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Andersen v. Lewis McChord Communities LLC
W.D. Wash. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
No. 35 at 1, 6, 7.) 3 As the state retains no sovereignty after it cedes land to the federal government, any state 4 laws in existence at the time the federal government acquired an enclave become federal law. 5 Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123, 124 (5th Cir. 1952); see Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724 , 726 n.4 6 (9th Cir. 1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." A Mountain Construction, Inc. v. CHP Solutions, LLC
D.N.M. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Bayview, 2021 WL 1222164 , at *3 (concluding as to issue of jurisdictional status of certain federal lands, “[i]t is very possible that the Court will need the assistance of a professional historical or similar expert, and that an evidentiary hearing may be warranted”); see also, e.g., Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1977) (remanding for factual findings “on the question of just how the government acquired the property” at issue).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Coronado v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.
S.D. Cal. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Coleman, 20 2019 WL 3817822 , at *3; see also Willis v. Craig, 555 F. 2d 724, 725 (9th Cir. 1977) 21 (district court did not have jurisdiction where accident did not occur on federal enclave). 22 Here, whether the Naval Base San Diego is in fact a “federal enclave” for purposes 23 of federal enclave jurisdiction is not as obvious as Defendants suggest.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." (PS) Grant v. Martinez
E.D. Cal. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
See 28 U.S.C. § 5001 (b) (originally enacted at 16 U.S.C. § 457 ) (“In 23 a civil action brought to recover on account of an injury sustained . . . [‘in a place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within a State,’ 28 U.S.C. § 5001 (a),] the rights of the 24 parties shall be governed by the law of the State in which the place is located.”); see also Mater, 200 F.2d at 124 (5th Cir. 1952) (holding that a state law cause of action for “personal injuries as a 25 result of negligence . . . remained operative as federal law”), accord, Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 7…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hector Balderas v. Monsanto Company
D.N.M. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Wash. 2017), aff'd, 738 F. App'x 554 (9th Cir. 2018) (where plaintiff did not seek relief for contamination of federal territories and would have no standing to do so, court was “satisfied” that none of plaintiff’s claims arose on federal enclaves); see also, Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 725 (9th Cir. 1977) (district court did not have jurisdiction where accident did not occur 8 See Ballard v. Ameron Int’l Corp., No. 16-cv-06074-JSC, 2016 WL 6216194 , at *3 (N. D.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mayor of Balt. v. BP P. L.C.
unknown court · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Willis v. Craig , 555 F.2d 724 , 726 (9th Cir. 1977) ; Mater v. Holley , 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1952).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Celli v. Shoell
10th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir.1977) (remanding for district court to make a finding on whether federal enclave jurisdiction exists); Lord v. Local Union No. 2088, Int'l Bhd. of Elec.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Celli v. Shoell
10th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Willis v. Craig, 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir.1977) (remanding for district court to make a finding on whether federal enclave jurisdiction exists); Lord v. Local Union No. 2088, Int’l Bhd. of Elec.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Steven D. WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Edward J. CRAIG Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
75-2450.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 14, 1977.
555 F.2d 724
Joe R. McCray, argued, McCray & Roberts, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant., Richard E. Dodge, McNamara, Lewis & Craddick, Walnut Creek, Cal., William T. McGivern, Jr., Deputy U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., Robert E. Kopp, argued, Karen K. Siegel, Attys., Appellate Section, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Chambers, Choy, Belloni.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #7,032 of 633,719
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)
PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Willis was injured while working as a civilian employee of the United States Navy at the Concord Naval Weapons Station, Concord, California. After receiving benefits from the government under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, [1] he filed this negligence action against defendant Craig, the safety director of the weapons station. [2] Willis asserts federal enclave jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 17. [3]

[*726] In the court below, Craig moved to dismiss the action or for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) immunity. The trial court failed to resolve the jurisdictional issue, but instead entered summary judgment in Craig’s favor, finding him to be immune under the standards enunciated in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed. 1434 (1959).

Willis appeals, and contends that Barr is either overruled or not applicable here.

Neither party discussed subject matter jurisdiction in either the original or reply briefs. Since this Court must raise the issue on its own, Louisville and Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908), we requested briefs on the subject at the time of oral argument.

We deem it inappropriate to proceed with the merits of the immunity question if the district court may have lacked jurisdiction. We have, therefore, thoroughly searched the record and have attempted to decide the question of jurisdiction. Because we find unresolved and disputed facts surrounding this question, we remand to the district court to make a finding regarding subject matter jurisdiction. [4]

To aid the district court upon remand, we highlight some of the deficiencies in the record:

The factual dispute centers on the question of just how the government acquired the property on which Willis was injured, and how it is being used. Article I, § 8, cl. 17 requires that the subject property be “. . . purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings . .” (emphasis added). Craig contended below that the shorelands on which Willis’ accident occurred were acquired from the State of California in two condemnation actions. He submitted an affidavit in support of this theory, but did not file certified j udgments from the condemnation actions. Craig also contended that the government’s interest in the subject property is merely “proprietary” through a “navigational servitude”, but did not really explain this theory.

Willis, on the other hand, submitted his attorney’s affidavit together with a conclu-sory letter from the California State Land Commission which states:

After a review of the map submitted with your April 14 letter, it appears that your client was injured within an area ceded by the State to the United States under Chapter 81, Statutes of 1897 .

The map relied upon by the land commission, however, is not even in the record.

Obviously, none of the above “facts” regarding jurisdiction are conclusive, or even that persuasive. Willis’ accident either occurred on property “purchased” for one of the enumerated uses, or it occurred on other property. If it occurred on the former, enclave jurisdiction is proper. If it did not, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. We think that the parties can provide conclusive facts to aid the district court in making this determination.

[*727] REMANDED: The summary judgment should be vacated and proceedings held consistent herewith.

2

. Willis was injured when wet and frozen planks fell on him while he was removing the planks from a conveyor belt. He alleges that Craig, as safety officer, owed him a duty to provide for his safety, and breached this duty by failing to remedy the dangerous condition in which he was working.

Willis also pled a pendent malpractice claim against a treating physician. That claim is not involved in this appeal.

3

. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) provides:

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” (emphasis added).

[*726] Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 of the constitution provides in pertinent part:

“The Congress shall have Power .
[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation . . over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings . . . .”

“Exclusive legislation” in clause 17 has been construed to mean exclusive “jurisdiction” in the sense of exclusive sovereignty. Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 60 S.Ct. 455, 74 L.Ed. 1091 (1930).

4

. We have no quarrel with the propriety of enclave jurisdiction in this case (if the facts support it), even though the state courts may have concurrent jurisdiction. The best reasoning on this issue is found in Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1952). The court below may also want to consult a recent article on the subject of enclave jurisdiction which brings a sense of coherence to this confusing jurisdictional issue: R. Altieri, Federal Enclaves: The Impact of Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction Upon Civil Litigation, 72 Military L.Rev. 55 (1976).