Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMichael, Circuit Judge
The majority follows the D.C. Circuit by holding that the immunity for “governmental functions” conferred by section 80 of the METRO Compact is at least as broad as that conferred by the discretionary function exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), to the Federal Tort Claims Act. As the D.C. Circuit explained in Burkhart v. WMATA, 112 F.3d 1207, 1216-17 (D.C.Cir.1997), this means that the METRO is immune from liability for any acts and omissions that are “susceptible to policy analysis” under the standard established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 325, 111 S.Ct.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- United States v. GaubertSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Berkovitz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Dalehite v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio GrandenseSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Indian Towing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.