U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1977

Jo C. Deal v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided April 4, 1977 · Van Oosterhout, Bright, Ross

552 F.2d 255; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14001 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

E. C. Gilbreath, Fort Smith, Ark., James W. Gallman, W. W. Bassett, Jr., Fayetteville, Ark., R. H. “Bud” Mills, Stanley W. Ludwig, James M. Roy, Jr., Springdale, Ark., on brief, for appellants., Michael J. Pangia, Trial Atty., Aviation Unit, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Robert E. Johnson, U. S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., on brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Insurance Co. of North America v. United States (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1981)
Thurston v. United States (District Court, D. Utah 1995)
Dyer v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1982)
Himmler v. United States (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1979)
Ward v. United States (District Court, N.D. Texas 1979)

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.

Dr. Deal and five passengers, travelling in a private plane piloted by Dr. Deal from Fayetteville to Harrison, Arkansas, were all killed in a tragic accident while attempting to land at the Harrison airport. Their executors brought this action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), asserting the accident was proximately caused by the negligence of federal air traffic controllers.

The district court (Judge Paul X Williams) dismissed all complaints on the basis that the Federal officials were guilty of no negligence which proximately caused the accident. The basis for such determination is clearly set out in a well-reasoned opinion of the trial court reported at 413 F.Supp. 630 (W.D.Ark.).

Our examination of the record satisfies us that Judge Williams’ detailed findings are supported by substantial evidence and that his decision was not induced by any erroneous view of the applicable law. We affirm on the basis of Judge Williams’ reported opinion.

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