42 U.S.C. § 2212
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: In Re Consol. United States Atmospheric Testing Litig., Christina Konizeski v. Livermore Labs, Alice P. Broudy v. United States, 820 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1987).
In Re Consol. United States Atmospheric Testing Litig., Christina Konizeski v. Livermore Labs, Alice P. Broudy v. United States, 820 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1987). “In the district court, the government moved pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2212 , to be substituted for the contractors as defendants in these actions.”
In Re Consol. United States Atmospheric Testing Litig., 616 F. Supp. 759 (N.D. Cal. 1985). “3 The government has moved pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2212 , to be substituted for the contractors as defendant in these actions, and the contractors have joined in that motion.”
Mildred M. Newman, & Melvin D. Newman v. Peter Soballe, M.D., 871 F.2d 969 (11th Cir. 1989). “2d 235 (1988), the district court allowed substitution of the United States for certain contractors pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 2212, a statute similar to the Gonzalez Act but without an equivalent of subsection (f).”
Mary E. Hammond, Individually & Mary E. Hammond as She is the of the Est. of Charles E. Hammond v. United States, 786 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1986). “This is a constitutional challenge to the retroactive application of a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2212 , that substitutes the United States as defendant in all suits against private contractors to the government for radiation injuries arising from any of the United States…”
Margarito Salmon, Magdalena Salmon, Individually & as Next Friend for Margarito Salmon, Jr. v. Martin R. Schwarz & Arturo A. Gonzalez, 948 F.2d 1131 (10th Cir. 1991). “§ 2679 (b)-(e); the National Swine Flu Immunization Program, 42 U.”
Wilson v. Big Sandy Healthcare, Inc., 553 F. Supp. 2d 825 (E.D. Ky. 2008). “The defendants removed to federal court and during the pendency of the action, Congress enacted the Department of Energy National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1985, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2212 (“the Nuclear Radiation Act”), which,…”
Leonard Chapman v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., a Pennsylvania Corp., 911 F.2d 267 (9th Cir. 1990). “However, that decision rests upon a statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2212 , which specifically provides for private contractor immunity for atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.”
Sj & W. Ranch, Inc. v. Lehtinen, 717 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Fla. 1989). “2d at 988-92 (Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1985, § 1631(b), 42 U.S.C. § 2212 , an “exclusive remedy” statute, requiring substitution of the United States as sole defendant did not violate due process even though the United States had dispositive defenses which were…”
Miller v. United States, 73 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1995). “1986) (holding that 42 U.S.C. § 2212 , which requires substitution of United States as defendant in suits against private contractors for radiation injuries from atomic testing and makes FTCA the sole remedy, does not violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process or Takings Clauses).”
Connell v. United States, 737 F. Supp. 61 (S.D. Iowa 1990). “§ 2212 which substitutes the United States as defendant in all suits against private contractors to the government for radiation injuries arising from any of the United States atomic weapons testing programs, and makes the FTCA the sole remedy for those injuries).”
Binning v. Hardin, 729 F. Supp. 637 (S.D. Ind. 1990). “§ 247b(k)-(i) (amended 1978), and the Department of Energy National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 2212 . These acts have withstood constitutional challenges, and the rational basis test has been the standard of due…”
Clover v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Hous. LLC (S.D. Cal. 2021). “§ 2783 (b)(1) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 2212 (a)(1)) provided that 18 the FTCA was the exclusive remedy for injury due to radiation based on acts or 19 omissions of contractors carrying out atomic weapons under a contract with the 20 United States.”
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.