United States v. Yellow Cab Co.
340 U.S. 543 (1951) Cited 363 timesHolding that through the FTCA, the government consented to be sued for contribution as a third-party defendant
U.S. v. St. Louis University
336 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2003) Cited 22 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 02-1351. Argued: January 22, 2003. Decided: July 16, 2003. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, J. Frederick Motz, J. ARGUED: Mary McElroy Leach, Senior Trial, Counsel, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Marc Simon Moller, Kreindler Kreindler, New York, New York, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Jeffrey Axelrad, Director, Torts Branch
General Elec. Co. v. United States
792 F.2d 107 (8th Cir. 1986) Cited 4 timesNoting contribution specifically
Traveler's Insurance Company v. United States
283 F. Supp. 14 (S.D. Tex. 1968) Cited 14 timesIn Travelers Insurance Co. v. United States, 283 F. Supp. 14 (S.D.Tex. 1968), the parties had entered into an agreed order of dismissal with prejudice and after a discussion of both Callihan and article 2212, the court held that these orders were final judgments for the purpose of article 2212.
City of Pittsburgh v. United States
359 F.2d 564 (3d Cir. 1966) Cited 12 timesNo. 15343. Argued December 3, 1965. Decided April 21, 1966. Jack H. Weiner, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gustave Diamond, U.S. Atty., Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellant. Robert Engel, Asst. City Sol., Pittsburgh, Pa. (David Stahl, City Sol., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee. Before HASTIE, GANEY and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges. FREEDMAN, Circuit Judge. The district court granted summary
Bagge v. United States
242 F. Supp. 809 (N.D. Cal. 1965) Cited 3 timesIn Bagge v. United States, supra, at page 810, the court, applying California law, held that plaintiff was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of his negligence vel non.[7] Finally, appellant asserts that collateral estoppel should not be allowed against a party who, because he was the defendant rather than the plaintiff in the prior action, did not have the initiative and thus did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue effectively.
Section 1346 - United States as defendant
28 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 24,026 times 23 Legal AnalysesDetermining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"
Rule 14 - Third-Party Practice
Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 Cited 3,625 times 10 Legal AnalysesStriking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy