OVE GUSTAVSSON CONTRACTING CO., INC.,

v.

FLOETE, ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• United States & Linda Stout v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. OF Educ., 372 F.2d 836 (5th Cir. 1966)
  …erved that even where the Briggs dictum has seemingly been adopted, “it appears to be in a state of diminishing force, if not outright erosion”, citing Dillard v. School Board of the City of Charlottesville, 4 Cir. 1962, 308 F. 2d 920, cert. denied, 374 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 1864, 10 L.Ed.2d 1051 (1963), and McCoy v. Greensboro City Board of Education, 4 Cir. 1960, 283 F. 2d 667. The Third Circuit, reversing a district court’s approval of a year-by-year plan, ignored Briggs: “if the plan as approved by the cou…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Webster Bivens v. SIX Unknown Named Agents OF the Fed. Bureau OF Narcotics, 456 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir. 1972)
  …m duties that may be termed discretionary? In deciding this question, however, words such as “discretion” are not particularly helpful. As we said in Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co. v. Floete, 299 F. 2d 655, 659 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. [*1346] denied, 374 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 1862, 10 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1963): There is no litmus paper test to distinguish acts of discretion, * * * and to require a finding of “discretion” would merely postpone, for one step in the process of reasoning, the determination of the real q…
• Norton v. McSHANE, 332 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1964)
  …1. (Emphasis added.)4 There is another limiting factor —the nature of the duties. It is often said that the officer must be performing a “discretionary function.” In Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co. v. Floete, 2 Cir.1962, 299 F. 2d 655, cert. denied, 374 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 1862, 10 L.Ed.2d 1050, Judge Medina explained what this requirement actually means: “There is no litmus paper test to distinguish acts of discretion * *, and to require a finding of ‘discretion’ would merely postpone, for one step in the…

  ← 1 / 2 →