Topic: 2680(h) does not bar application of the ftca to tort claims… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #952

8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 30 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 Ingram v. Faruque.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 Ingram v. Faruque Anchor
ca10 · 2013
green “2680(h) does not bar application of the ftca to tort claims arising out of the conduct of va medical personnel within the scope of' 38 u.s.c. 7316 (f).” 7
2 Shirley Molzof, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert E. Molzof v. United States
ca7 · 1993
green “e share the reluctance of other courts addressing this issue to deny the plaintiff the freedom to choose his medical provider and, in effect, to compel him to undergo treatment from his tortfeasor.” 4
3 BARSAMIAN v. City of Kingsburg
caed · 2009
green “that the employment brought the tortfeasor and victim together in time and place is not enough.” 4
4 Fothergill v. United States
ca1 · 2009
green “he applicability of the discretionary function exception turns on the nature and quality of the harm-producing conduct, not on the plaintiffs' characterization of that conduct.” 3
5 Johnson v. United States
ca10 · 1992
green “the gathering of information from an individual reporting a potential problem and the communication between rangers is inextricably tied to the rescue decision.” 3
6 Hardscrabble Ranch, L.L.C. v. United States
ca10 · 2016
green “the existence of some mandatory language does not eliminate discretion when the broader goals sought to be achieved necessarily involve an element of discretion.” 3
7 Clark v. United States
ca10 · 2017
green “even if the inspections might have revealed dangerous conditions, as the district court explained the plaintiffs have identified only a discretionary duty or function to determine specifically how to remediate those specific conditions and thereby potentially avert their injurie…” 3
8 Clark v. United States
ca10 · 2017
green “to circumvent the discretionary function exception, the mandatory duty alleged must be one whose breach bears a causal relationship to the plaintiffs' injuries, thereby giving rise to their cause of action against the government.” 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.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check