U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1967

United States v. Harl Cole

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided May 2, 1967 · Tuttle, Ains-Worth, Fulton

376 F.2d 848; 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6554 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Morton Hollander, Richard S. Salz-man, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., by Julius M. Hulsey, Asst. U. S. Atty., J. Charles Kruse, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Barefoot Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan S. Rosenthal, Richard S. Salzman, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Donald B. Howe, Howe & Murphy, Tallapoosa, Ga., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Otis F. Aston v. United States (5th Cir. 1980)
Hatfield v. United States (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 2019)
Mario Cabello v. United States (5th Cir. 2011)
White v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Texas 1989)
Dr. Thomas C. Sturgeon v. Federal Prison Industries, Attorney General, United States of America (8th Cir. 1979)
Willie Thompson v. United States of America and Mr. J. F. Koyle (5th Cir. 1974)
Jimmie Otis Wooten v. United States (5th Cir. 1971)
Jewell v. United States (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1967)

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 suit for damages for personal injury under the Federal Tort Claims Act was decided by the trial court prior to the decision by the United States Su *849 preme Court of United States v. Demko, 385 U.S. 149, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258. It is clear that the Demko ease rules this one, in that the appellee was a prisoner whose injuries were incurred in the course of a work activity connected with the maintenance or operation of Maxwell Air Force Base, an institution within which appellee was confined as a civilian prisoner. In such circumstances, the compensation provisions of 18 U.S. C.A. § 4126 were exclusive as to the benefits provided for the appellee in such a situation. The trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain a Tort Claims Act complaint under such circumstances.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with directions that the complaint be dismissed.

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