CLAYTON M. JONES ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the second suit brought by the plaintiffs is barred by res judicata.
Plaintiffs previously sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging deceit and negligence based on erroneous information provided …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM;.
Plaintiffé-appellants' sued ' the United States in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, underthe Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. §§.-1346(b), 2674, 2680, 2401 (b) (1952). They charged that the Director of the United States Geological Survey had furnished them with erroneous information, on which they had relied to their detriment in later selling certain stock at less than its true valué. Their complaint, in separately stated causes of action, alleged both deceit and negligence. The trial judge dismissed the complaint. D.C.1952, 120 F.Supp. 894. The Second Circuit affirmed. Jones v. United States, 1953, 207 F. 2d 563, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 921, 74 S.Ct. 518, 98 L.Ed. 1075, rehearing denied 1954, 347 U.S. 940, 74 S.Ct. 627, 98 L.Ed. 1089.
Later, plaintiffs-appellants brought the present suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Their complaint was couched in substantially the same terms as the cause of action for “negligence” alleged in the prior one. It said that the Director failed to exercise due care and was negligent in-failing to furnish, plaintiffs'“with thé actual data or estimate Of the ultimate recoverable reserves then in the custody and record of the Survey at the time”; it further alleged that they were entitled by law to the requested information under 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 488-489. The District Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 1954, 126 F.Supp. 10.
Clearly, this second suit is barred as res judicata. The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed on that ground. Stoll v. Gottlieb, 1938, 305 U.S. 165, 172, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104. We need not discuss the other points raised.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Denton v. United States, 638 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir. 1981)
-
The Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. OF Bloomington v. The United States, 240 F.2d 863 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Authorities Cited
- Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1938)
- Jones et ux. v. United States, 207 F.2d 563 (2d Cir. 1953)
- Jones et ux. v. United States, 347 U.S. 921 (U.S. 1954)
- Smith v. Heinze, 347 U.S. 921 (U.S. 1954)
- Holland v. Illinois, 347 U.S. 940 (U.S. 1954)
- Motley v. North Carolina, 347 U.S. 940 (U.S. 1954)