U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 171— TORT CLAIMS PROCEDURE

28 U.S.C. § 2671

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this chapter and sections 1346(b) and 2401(b) of this title, the term “Federal agency” includes the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States, but does not include any contractor with the United States.

“Employee of the government” includes (1) officers or employees of any federal agency, members of the military or naval forces of the United States, members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under section 115, 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32, and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation, and (2) any officer or employee of a Federal public defender organization, except when such officer or employee performs professional services in the course of providing representation under section 3006A of title 18.

“Acting within the scope of his office or employment”, in the case of a member of the military or naval forces of the United States or a member of the National Guard as defined in section 101(3) of title 32, means acting in line of duty.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,622 cases (688 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: U.S. Tobacco Cooperative Inc. v. Big South Wholesale of VA Inc
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
U.S. Tobacco Cooperative Inc. v. Big South Wholesale of VA Inc (2018) ca4 · cites it 4× “" 28 U.S.C. § 2671 . "[T]he term 'Federal Agency' includes the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the…”
Saleh v. Titan Corp. (2009) cadc · cites it 6× “28 U.S.C. § 2671 . No other circuit court has gone as far as our circuit goes today.”
Michael Rinaldi v. United States (2018) ca3 · cites it 2× “531, 536 (1988); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671–2680. However, it excludes claims “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or 15 To the extent Rinaldi argues the discretionary function exception cannot apply because his…”
Nadine Pellegrino v. TSA (2019) ca3 · cites it 5× “” See 28 U.S.C. § 2671 (providing in the Tort Claims Act that “[e]mployee of the Government” includes “officers or employees of any federal agency”); 49 U.”
United States v. Stanley (1987) scotus · cites it 4× “After an administrative claim for compensation was denied by the Army, Stanley filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C. § 2671 et seq., alleging negligence in the administration, supervision, and subsequent monitoring of the drug testing program.”
United States v. Smith (1991) scotus · cites it 4× “4564 , note following 28 U. S. C. § 2671 (emphasis added). Notably, neither that statement, nor anything in the legislative history of the Act, reveals any intent on the part of Congress to limit the scope of pre-existing remedies available to victims of torts committed by…”
United States v. Orleans (1976) scotus · cites it 3× “” 28 U. S. C. § 2671 . 3 Since the United States can be sued only to the extent that it has waived its immunity, due regard must be given to the exceptions, including the independent contractor exception, to such waiver.”
Jason Laible v. Timothy Lanter (2024) ca6 · cites it 9× “” 28 U.S.C. § 2671 . These two definitions are commonly referred to as the federal employee clause and the official capacity clause, respectively.”
Gregory Edison v. United States (2016) ca9 · cites it 2× “12(b)(1), under the independent contractor exception to the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 . Plaintiffs timely appeal.”
Annamma A. Ezekiel and Al Ezekiel v. Jaime T. Michel and United States of America (1995) ca7 · cites it 4× “Michel was a federal employee acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the alleged negligent act, the district court substituted the United States as the proper defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), see 28 U.S.C. § 2671 , et seq., and proceeded to…”
Osborn v. Haley (2007) scotus · cites it 2× “4563 , note following 28 U.S.C. § 2671 , point to the importance Congress placed on giving a federal employee a full opportunity to seek this protection.”
Smith v. United States (1993) scotus · cites it 4× “4564 , 28 U. S. C.§ 2671 note, Congress made the following findings: "(1) For more than 40 years the Federal Tort Claims Act has been the legal mechanism for compensating persons injured by negligent or wrongful acts of Federal employees committed within the scope of their…”
Show all 3,622 citing cases →
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.