Anderegg v. United States
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Okutsu v. State. (Haw. Ct. App. 2023)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong (Supreme Court of the United States 2015)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong (Supreme Court of the United States 2015)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2015)
- Bevelheimer v. United States (Court of Claims 1984)
- Kondo v. Katzenbach (D.C. Cir. 1966)
- Riley v. United States (District Court, D. Maryland 1965)
- Jackson v. United States (District Court, D. Maryland 1960)
- Sandridge v. Folsom (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1959)
- Cole v. United States (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1959)
- United States v. Bristow (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1956)
- United States v. Wilkes-Barre Transit Corp. (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1956)
- Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co. v. United States (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1955)
- United States v. WH Pollard Company (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1954)
- Snyder v. Scofield (District Court, S.D. Texas 1953)
- Menclewicz v. United States (District Court, W.D. New York 1953)
- Brown & Root, Inc. v. United States (District Court, S.D. Texas 1950)
- Connor v. United States (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1950)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant in an action for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act of August 2, 1946, 60 Stat. 842, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2671-2680. The action was instituted to recover for damage to property which occurred on January 2, 1945. It was not commenced until April 14, 1948, which was thus more than one year after either the accrual of the claim or the passage of the statute, which was too late. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(b). Contention is made that the limitation of the statute was waived because claim was filed with and considered by the War Department and not declined by it until November 1947; but it is elementary that the government may not be sued except in strict accord with the conditions which it has imposed and that neither action nor neglect on the part of governmental officers may extend the time for suit which Congress has limited. United States v. Michel, 282 U.S. 656, 51 S.Ct. 284, 75 L.Ed. 598. Not even a U. S. District Attorney may waive conditions or limitations imposed by statute in respect of suits against the United States. Munro v. United States 303 U.S. 36, 41, 58 S.Ct. 421, 82 L.Ed. 633; Finn v. United States, 123 U.S. 227, 233, 8 S.Ct. 82, 31 L.Ed. 128. Whether the limitation prescribed for suit by the Tort Claims Act be regarded as a condition of the right to sue or as a limitation upon the remedy would seem • to be immaterial; but it should be noted that the limitation is. imposed in the statute creating the right and the limitation in such case is ordinarily treated as a condition, as we pointed out in the note to State of Maryland v. Burkhardt, 4 Cir. 165 F.2d 869, 873.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.