TOME

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (U.S. 2002)
  …he military context). But see U. S. Information Agency v. Krc, 989 F. 2d 1211, 1216 (CADC 1993) (“injunctive relief is available” under the Federal Tort Claims Act for an intentional-tort claim when the statute bars a damages remedy), cert, denied, 510 U. S. 1109 (1994). Indeed, even if Harbury’s underlying claim could navigate these concerns, it is not at all apparent that any or all of Harbury’s many factual allegations would make out a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. As a general…
• Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1995)
  …etion in admitting A. T.’s out-of-court statements. It did not analyze the probative quality of A. T.’s six other out-of-court statements, nor did it reach the admissibility of the statements under any other rule of evidence. We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 1109 (1994), and now reverse. [*156] II The prevailing common-law rule for more than a century before adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence was that a prior consistent statement introduced to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influenc…
• Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1994)
  …21. The court then reviewed Georgia’s predeprivation procedures, found them “ample,” and denied Reich’s refund claim. Reich v. Collins, 263 Ga. 602, 604, 437 S. E. 2d 320, 322 (1993). Reich again petitioned for certiorari, and we granted the writ, 510 U. S. 1109 (1994), to consider whether it was proper for the Georgia Supreme Court to deny Reich relief on the basis of Georgia’s predeprivation remedies. II The Georgia Supreme Court is no doubt right that, under McKesson, Georgia has the flexibility to mai…