HUBSCH
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1949-12-19
No. 379
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
338 U.S. 440 Supreme Court of the United States (1949) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 94 L. Ed. 244 · 70 S. Ct. 225 · 1949 U.S. LEXIS 1556 · SCDB 1949-025
Cited by 84 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court reviewed Federal Tort Claims Act cases that had been decided in favor of the United States in the District Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, but before oral argument the parties submitted a joint settlement application. The Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2677 grants district courts the authority and responsibility to approve or reject proposed settlements of tort claims, even after judgments have been entered, and remanded the cases to the trial court to consider the settlement proposal.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

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.” 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.

Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (39 total)

  • Florida House OF Representatives v. The Honorable Charles J. Crist, Jr., 999 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2008)
    …e their sovereignty on Indian lands. U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3 (“The Congress shall have Power ... [t]o regulate Commerce with ... the Indian Tribes.”); see also California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987) (noting that tribal sovereignty is subordinate only to the federal government). Before IGRA, states had no role in regulating Indian gaming. See Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083. Congress enacted IGRA in 1988. Among other things, the…
  • Serian v. State, 588 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
    …itted in some forms in the state, the court held that the bingo statute was a regulatory statute and unenforceable on the reservation. Adopting the Butterworth analysis in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987) the Supreme Court stated: ... if the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within Pub.L. 280’s grant of criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to regulat…
  • Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1994)
    …to the claim.” The Court-had no occasion in Smith to address the meaning of the term “cognizable” because § 2679(b)(1) does not contain the term. We therefore find Smith unhelpful in this regard. Nothing in our decision in Hubsch v. United States, 338 U. S. 440 (1949) (per curiam), is to the contrary. In Hubsch, the parties submitted to this Court for approval a settlement agreement under 28 U. S. C. § 2677 (1946 ed., Supp. IV), which at the time provided that the Attorney General, “with the approval of t…

Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw