Legal Opinion
Kapuschinsky v. United States
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided January 3, 1966No. Civ. A. 7646PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEMPHILL, District Judge.
Negligence action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act; minor plaintiff claims she suffers a severe and permanent disabling condition as a direct result of the government’s negligence while she was a newborn infant in the United States Naval Hospital, Charleston, South Carolina. The government admits permanent injury and damage is not denied, contended is absence of negligence on its part, denies the sufficiency of any showing of its negligence as the proximate cause of the child’s injuries.
The evidence presents minimal factual dispute. On…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Estes v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- United States v. MunizSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Louisiana Ex Rel. Francis v. ResweberSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Steeves v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1968
- McNeill v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1981
- Kapuschinsky v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1966
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. ProthroCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1979
- Phillips v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1981
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.