Yolken v. United States, 590 F.2d 1303 (4th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Yolken v. United States, 590 F.2d 1303 (4th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Goss v. United States (mdd, 2024-09-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Goss v. United States
D. Maryland · 2024 · confidence medium
Enders v. United States, No. 90-1426, 1991 WL 10080, at *1 , 924 F.2d 1051 (Table) (4th Cir. Feb. 4, 1991); Yolken v. United States, 590 F.2d 1303, 1303 (4th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schoemer v. United States
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Bowers v. United States, 904 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir.1990); West v. United States, 729 F.2d 1120, 1122-23 (7th Cir.), aff'd en banc, 744 F.2d 1317 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1053 , 105 S.Ct. 2113 , 85 L.Ed.2d 478 (1985); Yolken v. United States, 590 F.2d 1303, 1303 (4th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Calhoun v. United States, 475 F.Supp. 1, 3-4 (S.D.Cal.1977), aff 'd, 604 F.2d 647 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078, 100 S.Ct. 1029 , 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. United States Dept. of Army (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
D. Maryland · 1985 · confidence medium
E.g., Yolken, 590 F.2d at 1303 (4th Cir.); Hass, 518 F.2d at 1138 (4th Cir.); Brodine, 735 F.2d 1353 , slip op. at 5 (4th Cir.); Labash v. United States Dept. of the Army, 668 F.2d 1153 , 1155 (10th Cir.1982); Collins v. United States, 642 F.2d 217, 220 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 964 , 101 S.Ct. 3115 , 69 L.Ed.2d 975 .
discussed Cited "see" Thompson v. United States Ex Rel. Brown
W.D. Okla. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yolken v. United States, 590 F.2d 1303 (Fourth Cir.1979); Southard v. United States, 397 F.Supp. 409 (E.D.Pa.1975), aff’d mem., 535 F.2d 1247 (Third Cir.1976); Redmond v. United States, 331 F.Supp. 1222 (N.D.Ill.1971); Kilduff v. United States, 248 F.Supp. 310 (E.D.Va.1960).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alexander Garcia v. United States
4th Cir. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Yolken v. United States, 590 F.2d 1303 (4th Cir. 1979) (noting that the Feres * doctrine bars “negligent induction” claims stemming from the suicide of a mental ill service member).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anthony J. Yolken, Infant, by His Mother and Next of Friend, Linda K. Ripplinger, and Irving Bowers, in His Capacity as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard T. Yolken, Deceased
v.
United States
77-2401.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 25, 1979.
590 F.2d 1303
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17316
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

590 F.2d 1303

Anthony J. YOLKEN, infant, by his mother and next of friend,
Linda K. Ripplinger, and Irving Bowers, in his capacity as
Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard
T. Yolken, Deceased, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 77-2401.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 15, 1978.
Decided Jan. 25, 1979.

Arthur Guy Kaplan, Baltimore, Md. (Sidney Kaplan, Kaplan & Kaplan, P.A., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.

Glen L. Cook, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Russell T. Baker, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Daniel M. Clements, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The appellants seek reversal of a summary judgment order entered in an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act growing out of the suicide of a mentally ill serviceman. The appellants allege negligence in the supervision of the decedent and in the decision to induct him into the Air Force. Recovery on the supervision claim is barred by Feres v. United States,340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), and like cases precluding recovery for malpractice in treating the infirmities of military personnel. The negligent induction claim is also barred by Feres and its progeny. See Joseph v. United States, 505 F.2d 525 (7th Cir. 1974); Healy v. United States, 192 F.Supp. 325 (S.D.N.Y.1961). Moreover, even were we to assume that a negligent induction is not within the Feres rule, we fail to perceive any causal relation between the alleged negligence and the injury, since the appellants concede that the serviceman's military experience did not cause or exacerbate his mental illness.

2

AFFIRMED.