Hubsch v. United States
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer (Supreme Court of the United States 1994)
- Lowry v. United States (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1997)
- Rodriguez v. United States (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1971)
- United States v. John M. Reilly (10th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority, D/B/A Washington State Ferries (9th Cir. 1962)
- United States v. Grover Alexander (5th Cir. 1956)
- Rowley v. United States (District Court, D. Utah 1956)
- Lauterbach v. United States (District Court, W.D. Washington 1951)
- Automobile Ins. Co. v. United States (District Court, D. Oregon 1950)
- ORDUNA v. United States (District Court, D. Maine 2022)
- ORDUNA v. United States (District Court, D. Maine 2022)
- Moser v. Department of Revenue (Oregon Tax Court 1970)
- Taylor v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1957)
- Wibye v. United States (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1949)
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
We granted writs of certiorari in these cases, 338 U. S. 814, to review a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 174 F. 2d 7, affirming judgments of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida in favor of the United States on claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Before argument, petitioners and the Solicitor General submitted a joint application for approval of proposed settlements of the claims, citing 28 U. S. C. § 2677, which reads as follows:
“The Attorney General, with the approval of the court, may arbitrate, compromise, or settle any claim cognizable under section 1346 (b) of this title [suits under the Tort Claims Act], after the commencement of an action thereon.”
*441 We construe § 2677 as imposing on the District Court the authority and responsibility for passing on proposed compromises, notwithstanding the judgments of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgments of the District Court heretofore entered herein. The application and stipulations are therefore referred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida with authority to consider and dispose of the same.
It is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.