Flamm v. Ribicoff (1961)

See Leimbach v. Califano, supra, at 304-305 ; Cheers v. Secretary of HEW, supra, at 468-469; Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F. 2d 477, 481 (CA2 1976), cert. denied, 431 U. S. 937 (1977); Simon v. Califano, 593 F. 2d 121, 123 (CA9 1979); Parker v. Finch, 327 F. Supp. 193, 195 (ND Ga. 1971); Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F. Supp. 507, 510 (SDNY 1961).

Cf. Filice v. Celebrezze, 319 F.2d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 1963); Feil v. Gardner, 281 F.Supp. 983, 985 (E.D.Wis.1968), aff’d per curiam, 402 F.2d 481 (1968); Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F.Supp. 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1961).

A. Muecke, United States District Judge, District of Arizona, sitting by designation 1 "(j) Application for monthly insurance benefits. (1) An individual who would have been entitled to a benefit under subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) for any month after August 1950 had he filed application therefor prior to the end of such month shall be entitled to such benefit for such month if he files application therefor prior to the end of the twelfth month immedia…

We need not inquire whether statements made by a government employee may ever provide a basis for an estoppel against the government in a suit such as this [See Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F.Supp. 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1961); Taylor v. Flemming, 186 F.Supp. 280, 284 (W.D.Ark. 1960); see generally 2 Davis, Administrative Law 491-591 (1958)]; for assuming that they might, appellant’s allegations, taken as true, afforded no basis for relief.

Rosner v. Sec. of Health, Education and Welfare, 306 F.Supp. 853, 855 (S.D.Fla.1970) (“Parties dealing with the Government are charged with knowledge of and are bound by statutes and lawfully promulgated regulations despite reliance to their pecuniary detriment upon incorrect information received from government agents or employees.”); Flamm v. Ribicoff 203 F.Supp. 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1961).

Persons “dealing with the Government are charged with knowledge of and are bound by statutes and lawfully promulgated regulations despite reliance to their pecuniary detriment upon incorrect information received from Government agents or employees.” Cheers v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 610 F.2d 463, 467 (7th Cir.1979) (quoting Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F.Supp. 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1961)).

In addition, plaintiff may not claim Ignorance of the relevant provisions — “[p]arties dealing with the Government are charged with the knowledge of and are bound by statutes and lawfully promulgated regulations despite reliance to their pecuniary detriment upon incorrect information received from Government agents or employees ... [e]stoppel will not lie regardless of the financial hardship ‘resulting from innocent ignorance.’ ” Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F.Supp. 507, 510 (S.D.…

Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F.Supp. 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1968) quoted in Goldberg v. Weinberger, 411 F.Supp. 88, 91 (E.D.N.Y.1976).

Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 , 68 S.Ct. 1 , 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947); Massaglia v. C.I.R., 286 F.2d 258 (10th Cir. 1961); Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F.Supp. 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1961); Terrell v. Finch, 302 F.Supp. 1063 (S.D.Tex.1969); Rock v. United States, 279 F.Supp. 96, 101 (S.D.N.Y.1968).

It cannot be questioned that the rule generally applicable to all dealings with Government agents is well stated in Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F.Supp. 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1961): “ * * * Parties dealing with the Government are charged with knowledge of and are bound by statutes and lawfully promulgated regulations despite reliance to their pecuniary detriment upon incorrect information received from Government agents or employees.” and by the Supreme Court in Wilber National Bank o…

See e. g., Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F.Supp. 507 (S.D.N.Y.1961); Taylor v. Flemming, 186 F.Supp. 280 (W.D.Ark.1960).

See Flamm v. Ribicoff, 203 F.Supp. 507, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 1961).