U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1952

McCranie v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided November 6, 1952 · Hutcheson, Holmes, Russell

199 F.2d 581; 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3395 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John L. Green, Athens, Ga., for appellant., Stanley D. Rose, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., John P. Cowart, U. S. Atty., and J. H. Fort, Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.

State of Maryland for the Use of Nadine Y. Levin v. United States of America, State of Maryland for the Use of Sydney L. Johns v. United States (3d Cir. 1964)
Maryland Ex Rel. Levin v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1965)
United States v. State of Maryland (D.C. Cir. 1963)
Gilkey v. United States (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1963)
Margaret Layne, of the Estate of William J. Layne, Deceased v. United States (7th Cir. 1961)
Layne v. United States (District Court, S.D. Indiana 1961)
Leary v. United States (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1960)
Storer Broadcasting Company, Detroit Fire & Marine Insurance Company and Associated Aviation Underwriters v. United States (5th Cir. 1958)
Fay Slagle v. United States of America and Texas Air National Guard (5th Cir. 1957)
Sawyer v. United States (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1956)
Courtney v. United States (2d Cir. 1956)
Watt v. United States (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1954)
Lederhouse v. United States (District Court, W.D. New York 1954)
Curtis v. United States (District Court, N.D. New York 1953)

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the United States in a suit, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., brought to recover for torts of National Guardsmen, whose unit had not yet been called into active service.

The district judge granted the judgment on the ground that the persons, whose negligent acts and omissions are alleged by the plaintiff to have been the proximate cause of the collision were not employees *582 of the United States acting within the scope of their office or employment at the time, as contemplated by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The decision was in accordance with the decision of this court in Dover v. United States, 5 Cir., 192 F.2d 431, Elmo v. United States, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 230, and United States v. Duncan, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 233. On the authority of those cases, the judgment is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.