Cases pin-citing Richards · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Richards

Cases pin-citing Richards

Richards v. United States  ·  1962  ·  122 pinpoint citations from 39 cases, 28 distinct passages.

Lyles v. Hughes  ·  2015-03-19  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“The Tort Claims Act was designed primarily to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort and, with certain specific exceptions, to render the Government liable in tort as a private individual would be under like circumstances.”
Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell  ·  2015-02-05  ·  D. New Mexico  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act.... ”
Wright ex rel. Wright v. United States  ·  2014-11-18  ·  S.D. Mississippi  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 7 L. Ed. 2d at 492
“The Tort Claims Act was 1 designed primarily to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort and, with certain specific exceptions, to render the Government liable in tort as a private individual would be under like circumstances.”
S.H. ex rel. Holt v. United States  ·  2014-07-08  ·  E.D. California  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[i]n the Tort Claims Act Congress has expressly stated that the Government’s liability is - to be determined by the application of a particular law, the law of the place where the act or omission occurred”
Sledge v. United States Bureau of Prisons  ·  2012-07-13  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“Congress has expressly stated that the Government’s liability is to be determined by the application of a particular law, the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. ...”
Sledge v. United States  ·  2010-07-13  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“Congress has expressly stated that the Government’s liability is to be determined by the application of a particular law, the law of the place where the act or omission occurred .... ”
Debnam v. Crane Co.  ·  2009-07-23  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“The general conflict-of-laws rule, followed by a vast majority of the States, is to apply the law of the place of injury to the substantive rights of the parties.”
Clifton v. Georgia Merit System  ·  2007-03-06  ·  N.D. Georgia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act....”
Zayler v. Department of Agriculture (In re Supreme Beef Processors, Inc.)  ·  2006-10-19  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“The Tort Claims Act was designed primarily to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort and, with certain specific exceptions, to render the Government liable in tort as a private individual would be under like circumstances.”
Hudert v. ALION SCIENCE & TECH. CORP.  ·  2006-04-18  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[w]here the negligence and the injury normally occur simultaneously and in a single jurisdiction, the law to be applied is clear, and no solution to the meaning of the words ‘the law of the place where the act or omission occurred’ is required.”
LaFromboise Ex Rel. LaFromboise v. Leavitt  ·  2006-03-02  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[Djespite the ambiguity that exists in the history due to the fact that Congress did not specifically consider the choice-of-laws problem, the legislative material indicates that Congress thought in terms of state *794 law being applicable.”
Lafromboise v. Leavitt  ·  2006-03-02  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"[D]espite the ambiguity that exists in the history due to the fact that Congress did not specifically consider the choice-of-laws problem, the legislative material indicates that Congress thought in terms of state law being applicable."
Kentucky v. United States  ·  2004-10-13  ·  Federal Claims  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act____”
United States v. Acorn Engineering Co.  ·  2004-03-19  ·  C.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act”
Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck  ·  2002-12-04  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act..we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but (should) look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.”
Gulf Power Co. v. Federal Communications Commission  ·  2000-04-11  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act."
In Re: First Merchants Acceptance Corporation, Debtor v. J. C. Bradford & Co.  ·  2000-01-20  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act.”
Patterson v. Illinois, Department of Corrections  ·  1999-01-26  ·  C.D. Illinois  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act ----”
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. United States  ·  1997-08-15  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act."
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Cityfed Financial Corp.  ·  1995-06-23  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act...."
Frizell Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network Cult Awareness Network, Los Angeles Chapter Cynthia Kisser Priscilla Coates  ·  1994-03-09  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used”
United States v. Peter Johnson  ·  1992-06-25  ·  Second Circuit  ·  pin 7 L. Ed. 2d at 492
“Lawful implies law of any kind and often comes close to Permissible”
Sandra Jean Smith v. United States  ·  1991-12-24  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"We believe that it would be difficult to conceive of any more precise language Congress could have used to command application of the law of the place where the negligence occurred than the words it did employ in the Tort Claims Act"
Pedraza v. Shell Oil Co.  ·  1991-08-13  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act.”
Sandra Jean Smith v. United States  ·  1991-05-01  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"We believe that it would be difficult to conceive of any more precise language Congress could have used to command application of the law of the place where the negligence occurred than the words it did employ in the Tort Claims Act"
Nupulse, Inc. v. The Schlueter Company, Bradley Losching, and Bernard A. Losching  ·  1988-07-28  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act_”
Constance Horner, Director, Office of Personnel Management v. Joseph D. Jeffrey  ·  1987-07-02  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
" 'we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but [should] look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.' "
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. Watson  ·  1983-01-31  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 S. Ct. at 1
“[A] section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole act and ... in interpreting legislation ‘we [should] ... look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.’ ”
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. Watson  ·  1983-01-31  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 S. Ct. at 1
"[A] section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole act and ... in interpreting legislation 'we [should] ... look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.' "
Howard Mullins and United Mine Workers of America v. Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, Consolidation Coal Co., Intervenor  ·  1980-12-31  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 S. Ct. at 1
"(w)e believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act"
Brock v. United States  ·  1979-04-24  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“Congress did not consider choice-of-law problems during the long period that the legislation was being prepared for enactment.”
Marshall v. Local Union No. 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters  ·  1979-01-23  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act . . . .”
Ray Marshall v. Local Union No. 639  ·  1979-01-23  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 369 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"We believe it fundamental that a section of a statute should not be read in isolation from the context of the whole Act . . . ."
Page 1 of 3   Next →