Adams v. U.S., 79-1008
| Decision Date | 03 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1008,79-1008 |
| Citation | 622 F.2d 197 |
| Parties | Gary L. ADAMS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Louis K. Rosenbloum, Pensacola, Fla., for appellant.
Thomas G. Banjanin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Pensacola, Fla., William Kanter, Michael Jay Singer, Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
[Opinion April 9, 1980, 615 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1980)]
Before CHARLES CLARK, VANCE and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
This case is before us again on the appellee's petition for rehearing. We write only to clarify one part of our prior opinion. See Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1980). In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is denied.
The present appeal does not present a case in which the notice of claim presented by the claimant in an executed standard form 95 was inadequate in content or detail. See id. at 289-90. We deal instead with another problem. We hold that the agency lacks the power to require that the claimant supplement a notice of claim, that contained 'enough details [about the underlying incident from which the complaint arose] to enable the agency to begin its own investigation.' Id. at 292. We reject the first circuit's opinion in Swift v. United States, 614 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1980), to the extent that it conflicts with such holding. We have not, however, intimated an opinion as to the effect, if any, a claimant's refusal to comply with an agency's reasonable request for supplemental information to clarify an inadequate claim would have on the issue of jurisdiction in a subsequent action for damages brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richland-Lexington Airport v. Atlas Properties
...of federal court jurisdiction over his or her claim." Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 1980), clarified by 622 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1980). The sufficiency of the notice requirement under § 2675(a) "is more than a question of technical niceties." Keene Corp., 700 F.2d at 842......
-
Fagot v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
...to enable it to investigate and must place a value on the injury. See: Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284, 286 (5th Cir.1980) clarified 622 F.2d 197. The purpose of notice is to avoid unnecessary litigation and costs to both parties by giving the agency the initial opportunity to examine ......
-
Warren v. U.S. Dept. of Interior Bureau of Land Management
...prerequisites under section 2675(a). 5 Accord, Avery, 680 F.2d at 611; Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284, 289-90, amended, 622 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.1980). Section 2672 states, inter alia: The head of each Federal agency or his designee, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attor......
-
Pagel v. U.S., C-97-20091 EAI.
...the landmark decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Adams v.. United States, 615 F.2d 284 (5th Cir.), on rehearing, 622 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.1980).10 In Adams, plaintiffs filed a claim with the U.S. Air Force asserting that the negligence of doctors at Eglin Air Force Base caused th......