Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Donald J. Peterson and Louise J. Peterson v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Donald J. Peterson and Louise J. Peterson v. United States Anchor | green | “whether it is reasonable to suppose that in exchange for its entry into flood control projects the united states demanded complete immunity from liability for the negligent and wrongful acts of its employees unconnected with flood control projects.” | 3 |
| 2 | Herbert F. Parks, D/B/A Parks Manufacturing Co. v. The United States of America | green | “affirmed a judgment of the district court dismissing on 702c grounds a complaint that the united states had negligently constructed, maintained and operated a flood control project and thus damaged the plaintiffs property.” | 3 |
| 3 | Benjamin T. Graci, Jr. v. United States of America, Philip C. Ciaccio v. United States of America, Emanuel Reid, Jr. v. United States | green | “whether it is reasonable to suppose that in exchange for its entry into flood control projects the united states demanded complete immunity from liability for the negligent and wrongful acts of its employees unconnected with flood control projects.” | 3 |
| 4 | Benjamin T. Graci, Jr. v. United States of America, Philip C. Ciaccio v. United States of America, Emanuel Reid, Jr. v. United States | green | “wholly unrelated to any act of congress authorizing expenditures of federal funds for flood control.” | 3 |
| 5 | Valley Cattle Company v. United States | green | “wholly unrelated to any act of congress authorizing expenditures of federal funds for flood control.” | 3 |
| 6 | Peterson v. United States | green | “prevent a threatened injury from a force of nature to the ladd air force base property and to the community of fairbanks, alaska.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.