Best Bearings Co., an Illinois Corp. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177 (7th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Best Bearings Co., an Illinois Corp. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177 (7th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
109 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 49 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Miguel Castro v. United States (ca9, 2024-06-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miguel Castro v. United States
9th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Instead, we simply adopted the reasoning of another circuit court which held that “since the [administrative] claim must precede the suit, the requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.” Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chaba v. United States Postal Service
N.D. Ill. · 2021 · confidence medium
The Postal Service cites Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972), and United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625, 1633 (2015), for the proposition that the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beaulieu v. Foster
N.D. Ill. · 2021 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972) (abrogated on other grounds by Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Heifner v. United States
N.D. Ind. · 2020 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Copen v. United States of America
N.D. Ohio · 2019 · confidence medium
Jet Aviation Inc. v. United States, 507 F.2d 508, 514 (6th Cir. 1974); Melo v. United States, 505 F.2d 1026, 1028 (8th Cir. 1974); Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d Cir. 1971); Mann v. United States, 399 F.2d 672, 673 (9th Cir. 1968).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Smoke Shop, LLC v. United States (3×)
7th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Aguilar v. United States, 397 F.3d 840, 852 (10th Cir.2005), and one of our early decisions confronting the meaning of the FTCA’s administrative claim requirement, Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972), operated under this same assumption.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Blakely v. First Federal Savings Bank & Trust
E.D. Mich. · 2000 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pesci v. Internal Revenue Service
D. Nev. · 1999 · confidence medium
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 , 113 S.Ct. 1980 , 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993); United States v. 87 Skyline Terrace, 26 F.3d 923 (9th Cir.1994); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972) (in 1966, § 2675(a) was amended and now provides that an administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing or maintaining a civil action under the FTCA).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Melvin Kanar v. United States
7th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Twice this court has held that § 14.2(a) establishes the elements of a “claim.” Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972); Erxleben v. United States, 668 F.2d 268, 271 (7th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Loper v. United States
N.D. Ind. · 1995 · confidence medium
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 , -, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1984 , 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burns v. United States Department of Justice
N.D. Ill. · 1994 · confidence medium
Stewart v. United States, 503 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ill.1980), aff'd, 655 F.2d 741 (7th Cir.1981); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972); Bukala v. United States, 727 F.Supp. 382 (N.D.Ill.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Sullivan v. United States
N.D. Ind. · 1991 · confidence medium
Charlton v. United States, 743 F.2d 557, 559 (7th Cir.1984); Erxleben v. United States, 668 F.2d 268, 271 (7th Cir.1981); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1175 (7th Cir.1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Connors ex rel. Connors v. United States
C.D. Ill. · 1989 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972); Stewart v. United States, 665 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bukala v. United States
N.D. Ill. · 1987 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barbara Davis, Cross-Appellants. v. The Hon. John Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the Army, Cross-Appellees
11th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Drazan v. United States, 762 F.2d 56, 58 (7th Cir.1985); Erxleben v. United States, 668 F.2d 268, 270-71 (7th Cir.1981); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williamson v. United States Department of Agriculture (2×)
S.D. Miss. · 1986 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Company v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William Hohri v. United States (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Because appellants, however, have failed to comply with mandatory filing requirements we need not reach the thorny question of when appellants' claims "arose." 46 Compare Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F.2d 836, 841 (2d Cir.1983) (refusing to waive the FTCA filing requirement on equitable grounds), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 , 104 S.Ct. 195 , 78 L.Ed.2d 171 (1984); Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 224 (8th Cir.1977) (same); Blain v. United States, 552 F.2d 289, 291 (9th Cir.1977) (same); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972) (same); Bialowas v. Unite…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. Internal Revenue Service
E.D. Tenn. · 1985 · confidence medium
Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir.1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972); see also Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. United States, 507 F.2d 508, 514-15 (6th Cir.1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Richcreek v. Grecu
S.D. Ind. · 1985 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Louise Drazan v. United States
7th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See 28 C.F.R. § 14.2 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 14.604 (b); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Surratt v. United States
N.D. Ill. · 1984 · confidence medium
Best Bearing Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Freddie L. Johnson and Clara Johnson, Husband and Wife, and Cross v. United States of America, and Cross-Appellee v. Timothy B. Hay, Third Party
3rd Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d 721 at 722 (9th Cir.1982); Blain v. United States, 552 F.2d 289, 291 (9th Cir.1977) (per curiam); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blue v. United States
D. Conn. · 1983 · confidence medium
In Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 648 F.2d 97 (2d Cir.1981) the Court of Appeals alluded to the issue but left it unresolved. 1 Cf. House v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 573 F.2d 609, 614 (9th Cir.1978); Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221 (8th Cir.1977); Molinar v. United States, 515 F.2d 246, 249 (5th Cir.1975); Executive Jet Aviation, Inc., v. United States, 507 F.2d 508 (6th Cir.1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir.1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047 (3d Cir.1971) (holding that compliance with § 2675(a) is a jurisdictio…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martinez v. Winner
D. Colo. · 1982 · confidence medium
Merely filing suit in federal court does not satisfy this requirement, see Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. United States
N.D. Ill. · 1982 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Binn v. United States, 389 F.Supp. 988, 991 (E.D.Wis.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Consumers Solar Electric Power Corp. v. United States Postal Service
C.D. Cal. · 1982 · confidence medium
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 , 61 S.Ct. 767, 769 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); International Engineering Co., Div. of A-T-O, Inc. v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 573, 577 (D.C.Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1048 , 96 S.Ct. 774 , 46 L.Ed.2d 636 (1976); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilkinson v. Gray
E.D. Va. · 1981 · confidence medium
Kielwien v. United States, 540 F.2d 676, 679 (4th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979 , 97 S.Ct. 491 , 50 L.Ed.2d 588 (1976); see also House v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 573 F.2d 609 , 614 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 , 99 S.Ct. 182 , 58 L.Ed.2d 171 (1978); Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 222 (8th Cir. 1977); Molinar v. United States, 515 F.2d 246 (5th Cir. 1975); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047 (3d Cir. 1971); Griffin v. Lee, No. 80-708 (E.D.Va.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Secretary of/and U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
E.D. La. · 1981 · confidence medium
This first action did not satisfy the requirements of § 2675(a) of first presenting the claim to the appropriate federal agency.” Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Schell v. National Flood Insurers Ass'n
D. Colo. · 1981 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972). 7 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Angela M. Stewart, a Minor by Mary Stewart, Her Mother and Next Friend v. United States of America
7th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Koziol v. United States
N.D. Ill. · 1981 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stewart v. United States
N.D. Ill. · 1980 · confidence medium
This argument must fail, however, because the statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act is jurisdictional in nature and is not subject to equitable considerations such as waiver and estoppel. 9 Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Binn v. United States, 389 F.Supp. 988, 991 (E.D.Wisc.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harold H. Emch, Jr., and Elizabeth R. Emch, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Harold H. Emch v. The United States of America
7th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
In view of the absence at the administrative level of allegations of operational level negligence, and inasmuch as the filing of a claim with the appropriate administrative agency is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972), we hold that the district court properly denied the motion for leave to amend so as to permit the appropriate agencies the first opportunity to review any claims of extra-statutory or operational level negligence.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. United States Department of the Treasury
N.D. Ill. · 1980 · confidence medium
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 , 61 S.Ct. 767, 769 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frey v. Woodard
E.D. Pa. · 1979 · confidence medium
West v. United States, 592 F.2d at 492 , Rosario v. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. v. United States, 531 F.2d 1227, 1231 (3d Cir. 1976), Pennsylvania v. National Association of Flood Insurers, 520 F.2d 11, 23-24 (3d Cir. 1975), Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d at 1049 , Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972), Goodman v. United States, 324 F.Supp. 167, 170 (M.D.Fla.), aff’d, 455 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1971), Marano v. United States Naval Hospital, 437 F.2d 1009, 1011 (3d Cir. 1971), Ashley v. United States, 413 F.2d 490, 492 (9th Cir. 1969), Mann v. Un…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scalia v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · confidence medium
See House v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 575 F.2d 609, 614 (9th Cir. 1978); Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1977); Molinar v. United States, 515 F.2d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1975); Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. United States, 507 F.2d 508 (6th *1045 Cir. 1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047 (3d Cir. 1971). 4 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Emch v. United States
E.D. Wis. · 1979 · confidence medium
The court also stated that operational level negligence by the defendants in the performance of extrastatutory duties would subject the United States to suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act: “ * * * In In re Franklin National Bank Securities Litigation, 445 F.Supp. 723, 728, 731, 733-34 (E.D.N.Y.1978), the court did hold that when a federal agency exceeds its ‘normal regulatory role’ and assumes ‘substantial control over the day-to-day operations’ of the bank, thereby inducing the bank and bank directors to rely on the agency’s actions to prevent fraud, the United States loses it…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kantor v. Kahn
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · confidence medium
Cir. 1978); Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1977); Molinar v. United States, 515 F.2d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1975); Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. United States, 507 F.2d 508 (6th Cir. 1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047 (3d Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Founding Church of Scientology v. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
D.D.C. · 1978 · confidence medium
Melo v. United States, 505 F.2d 1026, 1028 (8th Cir. 1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047 (3d Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walker v. United States
M.D. Fla. · 1978 · confidence medium
Blain v. United States, 552 F.2d 289, 291 (9th Cir. 1977); Rosario v. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 531 F.2d 1227, 1231 (3d Cir. 1976); Commonwealth of Pa. v. National Ass’n of Flood Insurers, 520 F.2d 11, 20, 23-24 (3d Cir. 1975); Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. United States, 507 F.2d 508, 514-15 (6th Cir. 1974); Melo v. United States, 505 F.2d at 1028-30 ; Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1048-50 (3d Cir. 1971); Mann v. United States, 399 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lunsford v. United States
8th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Blain v. United States, 552 F.2d 289, 291 (9th Cir. 1977); Molinar v. United States, 515 F.2d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1975); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3rd Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lunsford v. United States
8th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Blain v. United States, 552 F.2d 289, 291 (9th Cir. 1977); Molinar v. United States, 515 F.2d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1975); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3rd Cir. 1971). 14 The administrative exhaustion requirement, 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a), was among the amendments to the FTCA adopted in 1966.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Forrester v. U. S. Government
S.D.N.Y. · 1977 · confidence medium
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 , 61 S.Ct. 767 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); Melo v. United States, 505 F.2d 1026, 1028 (8th Cir. 1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blain v. United States
9th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3rd Cir. 1971); see Claremont Aircraft, Inc. v. United States, 420 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blain v. United States
9th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3rd Cir. 1971); see Claremont Aircraft, Inc. v. United States, 420 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christobal Rosario v. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. v. United States
3rd Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. United States, 507 F.2d 508, 514 (6th Cir. 1974); Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972). 7 . 395 F.Supp. at 1196 . 8 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Franklin State Bank v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 1975 · confidence medium
The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to such claims as may be asserted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by third party complaint, cross-claim or counterclaim.” (Emphasis added) The filing of such an administrative claim has been held to be an “absolute prerequisite” to the filing of a Federal Tort Claims action and “a jurisdictional requirement . not capable of a waiver or subject to an estoppel.” Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) International Engineering Company, Division of A-T-O, Inc. v. Elliott L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
See, e. g., Sherwood v. United States, supra; Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by William Sheppard, Insurance Commissioner v. National Association of Flood Insurers, an Unincorporated Association
3rd Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
Melo v. United States, 505 F.2d 1026 (8th Cir. 1974); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047 (3d Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth of Pa. v. National Ass'n of Flood Insurers
M.D. Penn. · 1974 · confidence medium
Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (C.A.3, 1971); Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (C.A.7, 1972).
BEST BEARINGS CO., an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
71-1205.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Jun 15, 1972.
463 F.2d 1177
Albert Brooks Friedman, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant., James R. Thompson, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Lawrence J. Cohen, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.
Duffy, Murrah, Juergens.
Cited by 101 opinions  |  Published
JUERGENS, District Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant (plaintiff) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint which, after amendments, purportedly alleged a cause of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b).

In its complaint, as amended, plaintiff alleged that during the months of April through September, 1966, it purchased ball bearings from a company for $11,170.42; that on November 2, 3, 4, 29 and December 14 of 1966, special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation took the bearings and other items which were not returned, and on September 10 and 14, 1969, plaintiff made demand upon the defendant for return of the bearings and defendant refused.

The United States (defendant) moved to dismiss for the reasons that the court lacked jurisdiction; that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief might be granted; and that plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2675(a). The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff states that it had no objection to the agents of the F.B.I. taking the ball bearings and other properties originally, inasmuch as it considered that they were being held as evidence,[*1179] but when the limitation period for bringing a criminal action expired, it then tried to find out the situation as concerned the properties which had been taken and learned that the properties had been turned over to the consignee of the shipment; that it then made demand on the government for return of the properties.

In 1966, § 2675(a), Title 28 U. S.C., was amended and now provides that an administrative claim is a prerequisite to filing or maintaining a civil action under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

It is axiomatic that the United States can be sued only with its consent and that Congress may specify the terms and conditions of such suits as it authorizes. Requirement for an administrative claim to be filed as a prerequisite under the Federal Tort Claims Act exemplifies one such condition; since the claim must precede the suit, the requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. In this respect the requirement is not unlike the two year limitation period contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). This limitation has been held many times to be a jurisdictional requirement, one not capable of a waiver or subject to an estoppel. Powers v. United States, 390 F.2d 602 (9 Cir. 1968); Driggers v. United States, 309 F.Supp. 1377 (D.C.D.S.C.1970).

The filing of an administrative claim is an absolute prerequisite to maintaining a civil action against the government for damages arising from a tortious occurrence due to the negligence of a federal employee. The language of § 2675(a), Title 28 U.S.C., as amended, is clear and unambiguous and phrased in mandatory terms. The federal regulation implementing the procedure for an administrative claim under the Tort Claims Act provides that a claim shall be deemed to have been presented when the federal agency receives from the injured party written notification of the incident, accompanied by a claim for money damages. The mere filing of a suit does not meet the requirement of § 2675(a) of first presenting a claim to the appropriate federal agency. Peterson v. United States, 428 F.2d 368 (8 Cir. 1970). Meeker v. United States, 435 F.2d 1219 (8 Cir. 1970).

Plaintiff states that it inquired of the F.B.I. and United States Attorney’s office concerning the disposition of the properties, but that these inquiries were of no avail; that plaintiff then assumed the property was improperly taken from it and improperly given to Eastern Express Company (the consignee); that up until that point, a bailment existed between the government and plaintiff for the benefit of the bailee; that at the point of request for the return of plaintiff’s property on September 10 and October 14, 1969, and the government’s refusal to do so, the government committed the tort of conversion and was, therefore, liable; and that the letter of the F.B.I., stating said matter was in the hands of its attorney, the United States Attorney, coupled with the United States Attorney’s refusal to even speak about the matter, amounted to sufficient refusal and denial of plaintiff’s claim by the agency involved and left no other route open to plaintiff except to seek redress in this court.

The request for return of the bearings was not presentation of plaintiff’s claim to the government agency as required by § 2675(a), Title 28 U.S.C., which is prerequisite to filing a suit under the Act.

Plaintiff’s complaint and the accompanying documents fail to establish that plaintiff pursued the administrative procedure prerequisite to bringing this suit by virtue of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2675.

The district court properly dismissed the claim for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the provisions of § 2675(a).

The district judge correctly dismissed the complaint. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.