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

Paul O. Richter, Daniel J. Ferguson, and Elsie Elizabeth Scofield v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 8, 1977 · Koelsch, Duniway, Goodwin

551 F.2d 1177; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13922 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Francis F. Yunker, W. A. Franklin, argued, Franklin, Bennett, Ofelt & Jolles, P. C., Portland, Or., Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Charles H. Turner, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiffs-appellants., J. Charles Kruse, Civ. Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Wm. B. Borgeson, Portland, Or., Craig J. Casey, argued, for defendant-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

William Hohri v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1986)

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:

The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ action under the Federal Torts Claim Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (1970), on the ground that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (1970). They appeal. The facts which are alleged present a striking parallel to those found in Hammond v. United States, E.D.N.Y., 1975, 388 F.Supp. 928. We are not bound by that decision, but we are convinced that Judge Platt’s careful opinion in that case is correct and we affirm on the basis of his reasoning. See also, Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 1965, 353 F.2d 578.

Affirmed.

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