FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 12/10/2014 10:32:48 AM PST by ColdOne
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. June, a case that has received little attention, but will have far-reaching implications. The case boils down to this: Can the federal government actively conceal material evidence in order to escape liability? Common sense says no. The Obama administration says yes.
June involves the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) and a doctrine called “equitable tolling.” Prior to 1946, the doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibited citizens from filing suit against the government. That all changed in 1946, when a military plane crashed into the Empire State Building, killing and injuring many civilians. Congress responded by enacting the FTCA, which waives sovereign immunity and allows citizens to sue the government in instances.
However, claimants must file a claim within two years of injury. Equitable tolling freezes those two years under certain considerations, like government officials hiding pertinent facts. Courts across the country have consistently applied the doctrine of equitable tolling to FTCA claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtonexaminer.com ...
I see right through most of their BS.
You misspelled “Tranny”.
I , personally, despise the son of a bitch, but judging by the results of two national elections, I am in the minority.
So how does this work? Are we now a tyranny? A communist nation? From what is happening in DC it seems the fall continues and the dems/commie “scorched America policy with Boehner and etc’s financing there is no more a two party system and no voice for “we the people...” none at all.
C'mon, everybody knows transparent
means that you can't see it.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Why not that? They do everything else they damn well please and no one in authority objects.
UNITED STATES v. JUNE
Location: Interstate 10
Facts of the Case
In early 2005, Anthony Edward Booth and Laquith Green were driving along Interstate 10 in Phoenix, Arizona, when Green, the driver, lost control of the vehicle and drove it through a cable median into oncoming traffic. Their vehicle collided with another; Booth and Green were both killed. Marlene June, the conservator for Booth, sued the cable median manufacturer and the state of Arizona on Booth’s behalf and claimed the cable median did not function properly. During litigation, June attempted to depose certain Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) employees, but they were not made available until the spring of 2009. At the depositions, June’s counsel learned that the FHWA had tested the cable medians prior to the accident involving Booth. The cable medians failed to pass the FHWA’s crashworthiness test, yet the FHWA approved the medians as crashworthy. In December of 2010, June filled a claim with the FHWA concerning the defective barriers. In March 2011, FHWA denied the claim, and in May 2011 June filed a federal torts claim against the FHWA, via the United States Government.
The federal government moved to dismiss June’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the statute of limitations in the Federal Torts Claims Act. The Act states that an individual must file a claim with the appropriate federal agency within a two-year statute of limitations and that agency must make a final ruling on the claim before the individual may file a claim against the federal government. The federal government claimed that this statute of limitations is “jurisdictional,” and thus not subject to equitable tolling. June claimed that the statute of limitations should not have begun to run until 2009, when the FWHA employees were made available for depositions, because she could not have been aware of her claim against the federal government until that time. The district court sided with the federal government, dismissing June’s claim. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed on the basis of the Court’s earlier opinion in Wong v. Beebe which held the federal torts claim statute of limitations was subject to equitable tolling.
Question
Is the two-year statute of limitations for filing an administrative claim with a federal agency, prior to the initiation of a federal torts claim, subject to equitable tolling?
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_1075
Also:
“Respondent opposed the government’s motion and argued that her claim was in fact timely presented to the FHWA. J.A. 159-162. She asserted that the government had concealed facts relevant to its approval of the cable barriers by refusing to make its employees available for depositions in separate litigation against the State of Arizona,and she argued that the court should either permit equitable tolling of Section 2401(b)’s two-year time limit or find that her claim did not accrue until after she discovered the relevant facts in April 2009. J.A. 144-148. Respondent moved for leave to amend her complaint to include the various factual allegations supporting these arguments. J.A.8, 144-148, 159.
In November 2011, the district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, denied respondent leave to amend her complaint,and dismissed the case. The court began by rejecting respondent’s assertion that her claim did not accrue until April 2009. It explained that “[a] tort action against the United States accrues ‘when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.’ Id.at 6a (quoting Hensley v. United States, 531 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1257 (2009)).
The court found that respondent “knew of the injury and its immediate physical cause” on the day of the accident and that “[n]one of the facts relevant to the accrual of [respondent’s] claims were unknown to [respondent] or concealed by the United States.”
That reminds me of Hillary Clinton and her billing records which materialized out thin air shortly after the statute of limitation expired.
The claim that equitable tolling cannot be asserted against the government has been the policy of every administration, Democrat and Republican, as long as the Federal Tort Claims Act has been on the books (since 1946).
Thanks so much for that info you posted.
We are surrounded be criminals and tyrants...surrounded.
if there is no law protecting the people from government, then there is no law protecting government from people
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.