Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Love v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 6, 1989No. 87-3832Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCarroll, District Judge
I respectfully dissent with respect to the holding of the amended opinion that the Loves’ amended complaint states a tort claim against the United States. For the original opinion see Love v. United States, 871 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir.1989).
The basic issue confronting this Court is the nature of the claim(s), if any, of persons who obtained emergency farm loans from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and thereafter were not advised by the FmHA personnel of their opportunity under 7 U.S.C. § 1981a to seek deferral — prior to foreclosure — of loan payments in instances of temporary inability to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- United States v. NeustadtSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Art metal-u.s.a., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985
- Nicholson v. United Pacific InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1985
- Ray B. Woodbury v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.