§Why CasetextPricing

Harmon v. United States of America

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Nicholas J Woychick appearing for Defendant United States of America. Responses due

31 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Gaubert

    499 U.S. 315 (1991)   Cited 2,382 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the discretionary function exception only protects actions “grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime”

  2. Berkovitz v. United States

    486 U.S. 531 (1988)   Cited 2,038 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no choice to be protected by the discretionary function exception when a "federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow"

  3. Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church

    375 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 297 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the ministerial exception partially foreclosed a sexual harassment suit

  4. 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”

  5. Sabow v. U.S.

    93 F.3d 1445 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 197 times
    Holding that physician has a constitutionally protected property interest in his or her medical license

  6. 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

  7. Prescott v. U.S.

    959 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that the government bears the burden of proving the discretionary function exceptions

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. GATX/Airlog Co. v. United States

    286 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that the FAA's methodology for issuing a supplemental type certificate fell within the discretionary function exception

  11. Section 1346 - United States as defendant

    28 U.S.C. § 1346   Cited 24,052 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

  12. Section 2680 - Exceptions

    28 U.S.C. § 2680   Cited 7,686 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

  13. Section 171.210 - Where will BIA provide my irrigation service?

    25 C.F.R. § 171.210

    (a) We will provide service to your farm unit at a single delivery point that we designate. (b) At our discretion, we may establish additional delivery points when: (1) We determine it is impractical to deliver water to your farm unit from a single delivery point; (2) You agree in writing to be responsible for all costs to establish an additional delivery point; (3) You pay us our costs prior to our establishing an additional delivery point; and (4) Any work accomplished under this section does not