28 C.F.R. § 15.3

Agency report

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Federal employee's employing Federal agency shall submit a report to the United States Attorney for the district embracing the place where the civil action or proceeding is brought fully addressing whether the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment with the Federal Government at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose, and a copy of the report shall be sent by the employing Federal agency to the responsible Branch Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice.

(b) The appropriate Federal agency shall submit a report to the United States Attorney for the district embracing the place where the civil action or proceeding is brought fully addressing whether the person was acting as a covered person at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose, and a copy of the report shall be sent by the appropriate Federal agency to the responsible Branch Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice.

(c) A report under this section shall be submitted at the earliest possible date, or within such time as shall be fixed upon request by the United States Attorney or the responsible Branch Director of the Torts Branch.

[Order No. 2697-2003, 68 FR 74188, Dec. 23, 2003. Redesignated by Order No. 5968-2024, 89 FR 55517, July 5, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 133 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). · cites it 4× “The Attorney General (who has delegated her Westfall Act responsibilities to the United States Attorneys, 28 CFR § 15.3 (a) (1994)) is authorized to determine when any one of nearly three million federal employees was acting within the scope of authority at an allegedly tortious…”

Connie JAMISON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry WILEY, Defendant-Appellant, United States of Am., Defendant-Appellee, 14 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 1994). · cites it 5× “On April 20, 1992, the Justice Department notified the district court that it was formally withdrawing its earlier certification that Wiley had been acting within the scope of his employment, as it was authorized to do by its own regulation implementing the Westfall Act, 28…”

Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007). · cites it 2× “§ 2679 (d)(2), and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Appendix to 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 (1990), hereby certify that the Office of the United States Attorney has reviewed the available facts in this matter.”

Stokes, Billy v. Cross, Steven, 327 F.3d 1210 (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 2679 (d)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 (a) (2002). “Upon certification .”

Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D.D.C. 2002). “The certification is from the Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, who was *200 given the authority to file such a certification pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 . 11 . Although it is apparent that a collective bargaining…”

S.J. & W. Ranch, Inc. v. Dexter Lehtinen & United States of Am., 913 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 (a) (1989); Nasuti, 906 F.”

Rmi Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125 (6th Cir. 1996). “28 C.F.R. § 15.3 (1989). In this case, the U.”

Jeffrey A. Saul v. United States of Am. Ray Larsen Colleen St. Louis John Doe St. Louis, 928 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1991). “We will cite the House Conference Report on the CSRA, H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 1717, 95th Cong.”

Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200 (1st Cir. 1996). “See 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 (a). 10 . Howard did approve Walsh's statements after the fact.”

Council on Am. Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “§ 2679 (d); 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 (a). Based on this certification, the United States moved to dismiss on the theory that its name should be substituted for Ballenger’s and that the case should be dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity- Both parties briefed the scope of employment…”

Sandy Sykes v. United States, 507 F. App'x 455 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 2679 and 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 that all six individual defendants were employees of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and that they acted within the scope of their federal employment at the time of the incidents alleged in the amended complaint.”

Theresa H. Wood v. United States of Am., Charles D. Owens, Theresa H. Wood v. United States, 995 F.2d 1122 (1st Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 (delegating Attorney General’s certification authority to the United States Attorney).”

Show all 133 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 15.3(a) — 3 cases

Booten v. United States, 233 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Mass. 2002).

Aversa v. United States (1st Cir. 1996).

Rogers v. Mgmt. Technolog (1st Cir. 1997).

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.