James A. Cisco v. United States of America, Acting Through the Environmental Protection Agency
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Order
Plaintiffs-Appellants [hereinafter Cisco] appeal the dismissal of their suit filed under the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (1976 & Supp. V 1981) [hereinafter FTCA]. The district court found that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), barred Cisco’s claim and accordingly dismissed Cisco’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). We AFFIRM.
The United States Supreme Court has recently addressed the discretionary function exception contained in § 2680(a), and that Court has found the following factors useful…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio GrandenseSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. MunizSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
3Cited by38 opinions
- Williams v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
- In Re Consolidated United States Atmospheric Testing Litigation, Christina Konizeski v. Livermore Labs, Alice P. Broudy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. Gerald Hogan, M.D. v. The Dow Chemical Company Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company Hercules Incorporated Monsanto Company T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company, Inc. And Uniroyal, Inc., Clara Fraticelli v. The Dow Chemical Company Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company Hercules Incorporated Monsanto Company T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company, Inc. Uniroyal, Inc. The United States of America and Ten Former Regents of the University of HawaiiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Irene H. Allen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
- Kenneth Richardson Norman J. Trapp v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.