Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Richard J. Griffin and Mary Jane Griffin, His Wife v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided June 25, 1974No. 73-1326Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partVan Dusen, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ action is not barred by the “discretionary function” exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act. The majority affirms the district court’s conclusion that the implementation by DBS of the regulations governing the neurovirulence testing of the live, oral poliovirus vaccine, 42 C.F. R. §§ 73.110-73.118, and decision by DBS to release Lot 56 pursuant to such regulations did not involve a “discretionary function” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).

Section 2680 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

“The provisions of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Dalehite v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  3. Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  4. Leopold W. Mahler and Helen E. Mahler, His Wife, and Bertha Ebertsheim v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
  5. Lassin v. TarrDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API