United States v. Arthur Engene Whitcomb
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
The Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Law of Maryland * does not provide indemnity, the District Court has ruled, for a claim held against an uninsured motorist by the United States. This determination was rested solely on an interpretation of the Act: that the Government is not an eligible claimant, because it is not within the statute’s definition of a “qualified person”. The appeal of the United States against this judgment must, we hold, be sustained.
The Law makes available to a “qualified person” reparations for injury or damage arising from motor vehicle…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Vaughan v. NorthupSupreme Court of the United States · 1841
- Maddy v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
- British-American Tobacco Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Simon v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
- Gould Electronics Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Ward Electronic Services, Inc. v. Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
- Ward Electronic Services, Inc. v. Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.