21 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,238 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
United States v. Gaubert
499 U.S. 315 (1991) Cited 2,381 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the discretionary function exception only protects actions “grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime”
Nissan Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Co.
210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 4,322 times
Holding that once the moving party carries its initial burden of production, "the nonmoving parties were obligated to produce evidence in response"
United States v. Varig Airlines
467 U.S. 797 (1984) Cited 1,554 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FAA's alleged negligence in failing to check certain specific items in the course of certificating a specific aircraft as part of a spot-check program involved “calculated risks” but fell “squarely within the discretionary function exception”
Terbush v. U.S.
516 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 200 times
Holding that the NPS's decision not to warn of a rockfall hazard involved a “process of identifying and responding to hazards in the wild” and “implicate[d] the NPS's broader policy mandates to balance access with conservation and safety”
Kennewick Irr. Dist. v. U.S.
880 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 232 times
Holding that a "general statutory duty to promote safety" is insufficient to show that the government lacked discretion
Baum v. U.S.
986 F.2d 716 (4th Cir. 1993) Cited 186 times
Holding the design, construction, and maintenance of a guardrail system by the National Park Service are "just the kind of planning-level decisions of which the Court spoke in Gaubert" and fall within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA "to insulate [the agency's decision] from judicial second guessing"
Miller v. U.S.
163 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 149 times
Holding that United States immune because it had to consider more than safety when making the challenged decision
Rosebush v. U.S.
119 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 1997) Cited 139 times
Holding that the National Forest Service's decisions “to have open fire pits, [regarding] the design of the pits, whether to enclose them within railings, and whether to warn of their dangers” fall within the discretionary-function exception, which precluded claims for related personal injuries
Autery v. U.S.
992 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1993) Cited 149 times
Holding that an unwritten policy requiring "that employees 'make every effort within the constraints of budget, manpower, and equipment available to recognize and report' hazardous trees" did not create a mandatory directive
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,775 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2680 - Exceptions
28 U.S.C. § 2680 Cited 7,680 times 12 Legal Analyses
Concluding that claims for injurious falsehoods, disparagement of property, slander of goods, or trade libel are claims arising out of libel or slander under the FTCA
Section 261.50 - Orders
36 C.F.R. § 261.50 Cited 30 times
(a) The Chief, each Regional Forester, each Experiment Station Director, the Administrator of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and each Forest Supervisor may issue orders which close or restrict the use of described areas within the area over which he has jurisdiction. An order may close an area to entry or may restrict the use of an area by applying any or all of the prohibitions authorized in this subpart or any portion thereof. (b) The Chief, each Regional Forester, each Experiment Station

Burns v. United States of America

21 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that the discretionary function exception only protects actions “grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime”

Holding that once the moving party carries its initial burden of production, "the nonmoving parties were obligated to produce evidence in response"

Holding that the FAA's alleged negligence in failing to check certain specific items in the course of certificating a specific aircraft as part of a spot-check program involved “calculated risks” but fell “squarely within the discretionary function exception”

Holding that the NPS's decision not to warn of a rockfall hazard involved a “process of identifying and responding to hazards in the wild” and “implicate[d] the NPS's broader policy mandates to balance access with conservation and safety”

Holding that a "general statutory duty to promote safety" is insufficient to show that the government lacked discretion

Holding that United States immune because it had to consider more than safety when making the challenged decision

Holding that the National Forest Service's decisions “to have open fire pits, [regarding] the design of the pits, whether to enclose them within railings, and whether to warn of their dangers” fall within the discretionary-function exception, which precluded claims for related personal injuries

Holding that an unwritten policy requiring "that employees 'make every effort within the constraints of budget, manpower, and equipment available to recognize and report' hazardous trees" did not create a mandatory directive

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Concluding that claims for injurious falsehoods, disparagement of property, slander of goods, or trade libel are claims arising out of libel or slander under the FTCA