28 C.F.R. § 14.1
Scope of regulations
These regulations shall apply only to claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The terms Federal agency and agency, as used in this part, include the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States but do not include any contractor with the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “at 661 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 14.1 ). “[W]e view the failure to exhaust administrative remedies as jurisdictional.”
Gary L. Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1980). “The United States asserts, therefore, that because, in presenting their administrative claim, the Adams did not comply with the regulations governing the elements of a proper claim, 28 C.F.R. §§ 14.1 — 14.11, the district court properly dismissed their action.”
Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “See 28 C.F.R. § 14.1 (under FTCA, "terms Federal agency and agency .”
Loughlin v. United States, 230 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2002). “1988) ( “[T]he regulations contained in 28 C.F.R. §§ 14.1 — 14.11 ‘govern administrative settlement proceedings; they do not set federal jurisdictional prerequisites.”
Mary E. Tucker v. United States Postal Serv., 676 F.2d 954 (3rd Cir. 1982). “§ 2675 must be read in light of the settlement procedures established by 28 C.F.R. §§ 14.1 — 14.11, which were promulgated pursuant to section 2672.”
Smalls v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 300 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “28 C.F.R. §§ 14.1 el. seq. (2008). . 5 U.”
Bansal v. Russ, 513 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D. Pa. 2007). “Department of Justice regulations governing administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act appear at 28 C.F.R. § 14.1 , et seq. Section 14.2(a) provides the requirements that must be met by a claimant presenting a tort claim to a Department of Justice component:…”
Foskey v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 1047 (D.R.I. 1980). “It further urges, at this late date, that “[t]he claims filed in July [1972] do not comply with the statute (28 C.F.R. 14.1 et seq., Sections 14.3(b), (e)) and therefore are a nullity.”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by William Sheppard, Ins. Comm'r v. Nat'l Ass'n of Flood Insurers, an Unincorporated Ass'n, 520 F.2d 11 (3rd Cir. 1975). “Accordingly, pursuant to § 2675(a) both the Department of Justice, 28 C.F.R. § 14.1 et seq., and the Secretary, 24 C.”
Dan S. Hessbrook v. M.C. Lennon, Jr., D.A. French, & J. Saxman, 777 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1986). “In particular, we note that Subpart C of Part 543 — a provision wholly distinct from Subpart B of Part 542 —provides expressly for Bureau consideration of FTCA claims, including a mandate that “[t]he Bureau of Prisons shall consider administrative claims asserted under the…”
Lillian Knapp, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Julius J. Knapp, Deceased v. United States, 844 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1988). “In agreement with the Fifth Circuit, this court determined in Douglas that the regulations contained in 28 C.F.R. §§ 14.1 — 14.-11 “govern administrative settlement proceedings; they do not set federal jurisdictional prerequisites.”
Gloria Bukala, Adm'r of the Est. of Edward Bukala, Deceased v. United States, 854 F.2d 201 (7th Cir. 1988). “§ 2401 (b), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 28 C.F.R. § 14.1 et seq., appellant filed a claim against the government on July 10, 1984.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.