green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
29.6 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…plaintiff has no cause of action . . . against an employee, her exclusive remedy being an action against the united states.
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Van Hook v. Green
plaintiff has no cause of action ... against an employee, her exclusive remedy being an action against the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Van Hook v. Frye
plaintiff has no cause of action . . . against an employee, her exclusive remedy being an action against the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kaufmann v. Werlich
plaintiff has no cause of action . . . against an employee, her exclusive remedy being an action against the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Walters v. Officer
plaintiff has no cause of action . . . against an employee, her exclusive remedy being an action against the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jackson, Michael F. v. Kotter, Officer
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
plaintiff has no cause of action . . . against an em- ployee, her exclusive remedy being an action against the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robertson v. Collins
I also note that “[t]he only proper defendant in an FTCA action is the United States.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 693 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 681 (7th Cir. 2006); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir. 1981)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lawrence v. Metropoliatian Correctional Center-Chicago
See Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56 , 58–59 (7th Cir. 1982) (holding that relation back under Rule 15(c) “requires that actual notice be received by the government within the six-month limitations period”); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir. 1981) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Kotter
(2×)
See Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 681 (7th Cir.2006) (“[T]he United States ... would be the proper defendant for tort claims involving acts of the named officials within the scope of their employment.”); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981) (“Plaintiff has no cause of action ... [under the FTCA] against an employee, her exclusive remedy being an action against the United States.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b)(1).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven K. Luker v. Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Stewart v. United States 503 F.Supp. 59 , 61 n. 3 (N.D.Ill.1980), aff'd, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981); Waylyn Corp. v. United States, 231 F.2d 544 (1st Cir.1956).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hensley v. Soo-Line Railroad
Garcia v. Peter Carlton Enterprises, Ltd., 717 F.Supp. 1321, 1324 (N.D.Ill.1989); see also Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58 (7th Cir.1982); Stewart v. United Stales, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Allgeier, Maria D. Boldrick, Intervening v. United States
See, e.g., Hatchell v. United States, 776 F.2d 244, 246 (9th Cir.1985) (declining to interpret the period for actual notice in Rule 15(c) as extended three days beyond the six-month period by Rule 6(e), because to do so would extend the waiver in section 2401(b)); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981) (declining to expand the waiver by interpreting the period for actual notice under Rule 15(c) to include a “reasonable time” for service of process after the suit is filed within the six-month period).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wayne-Juntunen Fertilizer Co. v. Lassonde
Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981) (‘Having elected to file suit on the last day of the limitations period, plaintiff requests us to add to that period a “reasonable time” for service of process.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia v. Peter Carlton Enterprises, Ltd.
See, e.g., Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58 (7th Cir.1982); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981); see also Williams v. United States Postal Serv., 873 F.2d 1069 , 1073 (7th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca7 1989
Lojuk v. Johnson, 853 F.2d 560, 563 (7th Cir.1988); Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 57-58 (7th Cir.1982); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981); Simmons v. Fenton, 480 F.2d 133, 136 (7th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. United States Postal Service
Lojuk v. Johnson, 853 F.2d 560, 563 (7th Cir.1988); Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 57-58 (7th Cir.1982); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981); Simmons v. Fenton, 480 F.2d 133, 136 (7th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lenoir v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
We have little doubt but that the same individual would have received Warren’s suit papers regardless of whether the Department or its Secretary were named as defendant.” (At 1161.) See also Stewart, supra, 655 F.2d at 742 (stating that no “formal or informal ” notice had been given) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronnie L. Curtis v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agent Dennis Price Ex-Agent Bobby Bridgewater
Corp. v. Heller, 572 F.2d 174, 177 (8th Cir.1978); Stewart v. United States, 503 F.Supp. 59 , 61 & n. 3 (N.D.Ill.1980), aff'd, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981); Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477, 480 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 892 , 86 S.Ct. 185 , 15 L.Ed.2d 149 (1965); Kessler v. General Serv.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Healy v. United States Postal Service
Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir.1986); Hughes v. U.S.A., 701 F.2d 56, 58-59 (7th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tribue v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Hughes at 58-59 (the last day for filing was May 13, 1981, where the denial letter was mailed November 14, 1980); Stewart at 742 (the last day for filing was March 26,1980, where the denial letter was mailed September 27, 1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kuehl v. Gasway Corp.
Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58-59 (7th Cir.1982); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel Joseph Weisgal v. William French Smith, Atty. Gen. Norman A. Carlson William Garrison Fred Walker Donnie Ray Smith United States of America
Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981). *1280 In reaching the conclusion that we have, we are not merely following what we conceive to be the intention of the drafters of the Rule but we are also observing the admonition of the Supreme Court in Baldwin County v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 , —, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 1726 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196, 202 (1984), wherein the Court said: Procedural requirements established by Congress for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Betty Lou Allen v. Veterans Administration
Williams, 711 F.2d at 898 ; accord Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58-59 (7th Cir.1982) (per curiam); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hollins v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.
Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Karen A. Cooper v. U.S. Postal Service
Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981) (“Having elected to file suit on the last day of the limitations period, plaintiff requests us to add to that period a ‘reasonable time’ for service of process.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cook v. Starling
Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58-59 (7th Cir.1982); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981); Simmons v. Fenton, 480 F.2d at 136-137 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Julius Korn v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.
(2×)
See Williams v. United States, 711 F.2d at 898 & n. 8; accord, e.g., Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58 (7th Cir.1982); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. United Cab Co.
See, e.g., Craig v. United States, 413 F.2d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 1969); Archuleta v. Duffy's Inc., 471 F.2d 33 (10th Cir. 1973); and Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir. 1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hilco, Inc.
(2×)
See Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. Ministry of Defense of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
See Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741 (7th Cir.1981) (“Relation back under Rule 15(c) requires ... that actual notice be received by the Government within the period provided by law for commencing the action”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Handel v. Artukovic
See Stewart v. United States, 503 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ill.1980), aff'd, 655 F.2d 741 (7th Cir.1981), aff'd, 659 F.2d 1084 (1981) (“the operation of statutes of limitation was intended to be somewhat mechanical and ordinarily unrelated to the merits of the litigation”); see also Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 321 U.S. 342, 349 , 64 S.Ct. 582, 586 , 88 L.Ed. 788 (1944) (“the theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of stale claims in time com…
cited
Cited "see"
Wickfall v. Bolger
See Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981); Carr v. Veterans Administration, 522 F.2d 1355, 1357-58 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harold B. Hughes and Nancy J. Hughes v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Stewart, supra, 655 F.2d at 742 ; Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir.1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Robinson v. Department of Homeland Security
See also Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir. 1981).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lopez v. United States Postal Service
See also Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981) (in same situation, plaintiffs remedy is a malpractice suit).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Austin Vernell, Acting for and on Behalf of the Community Estate and Helen Vernell, Individually v. United States Postal Service
See also Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981) (in deciding exactly the same issue presented in Hughes, the court describes March 26, 1980, as the "last day of the limitations period” where the letter of denial was mailed September 27, 1979).
Angela M. STEWART, a Minor by Mary Stewart, Her Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
80-2516.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Jun 4, 1981.
655 F.2d 741
Frederick H. Branding, Asst. U. S. Atty., Michael S. O’Connell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, 111., for plaintiff-appellant., Sherwin Greenberg, Skokie, 111., for defendants-appellees.
Cummings, Pell, Markey, Patent.
Cited by 59 opinions | Published
MARKEY, Chief Judge.
In a letter dated September 27, 1979, the Postal Service denied plaintiff's claim for injuries suffered in a collision with one of its trucks. In accord with the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (Act), the letter notified plaintiff of her right to file suit “against the United States . .. not later than six months from the date of this letter.” Plaintiff sued the Postal Service and its truck driver on March 26,1980. The Government moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on June 2, 1980, on the ground that the United States is the only proper defendant under the Act. On July 23, 1980, plaintiff amended her complaint, adding the United States as a defendant. The district court, 503 F.Supp. 59, granted the motion to dismiss on September 26, 1980, holding that the limitation in the Act on time for bringing suit was jurisdictional in nature and not subject to equitable considerations. Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
On appeal, plaintiff argues that her suit against the truck driver, an employee of the United States, was in effect a suit against the United States. Plaintiff has no cause of action, however, against an employee, her exclusive remedy being an action against the United States. Noga v. United States, 411 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 841, 90 S.Ct. 104, 24 L.Ed.2d 92 (1969). Plaintiff also argues that her amendment of July 23, 1980, should be related back to March 26, 1980, under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Government would not be prejudiced thereby. Relation back under Rule 15(c) requires, however, that actual notice be received by the Government within the period provided by law for commencing the action. Carr v. Veterans Administration, 522 F.2d 1355 (5th Cir. 1975). That notice must comply with Rules 4(d)(4) and (5). Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, 39 F.R.D. 82 (1966). No notice, formal or informal, occurred during the limitations period here. Having elected to file suit on the last day of the limitations period, plaintiff requests us to add to that period a “reasonable time” for service of process. We cannot expand the fully adequate six-month period established by Congress. Moreover, application of Rule 15(c) to the Government in the absence of proper notice within the limitations period would result in prejudice by eliminating the statute of limitations defense. Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff’s remedy is a malpractice suit.
Affirmed.