Consolidated U.S. Atmospheric Testing Litigation, In re
Decision Date | 22 June 1987 |
Docket Number | Nos. 85-2842,86-5553,s. 85-2842 |
Citation | 820 F.2d 982 |
Parties | In re CONSOLIDATED UNITED STATES ATMOSPHERIC TESTING LITIGATION, Christina KONIZESKI, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIVERMORE LABS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Alice P. BROUDY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Alan W. Sparer, San Francisco, Cal., and Ronald G. Bakal, Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Marc Johnston, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern and Central Districts of California.
Before ANDERSON, ALARCON and HALL, Circuit Judges.
These consolidated appeals arise out of judgments entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1 in actions for personal injury and wrongful death brought by or on behalf of military and civilian participants in the United States atmospheric nuclear weapons testing program. Appellees are the United States Government and private contractors who participated in the nuclear weapons testing program.
In the district court, the government moved pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2212, to be substituted for the contractors as defendants in these actions. The contractors joined in that motion. The government then moved to dismiss or for summary judgment in all actions based on various exceptions to its liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the "FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680.
The district court granted the motion to substitute the government as defendant in place of the contractors, specifically finding 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2212 to be constitutional. It then granted the government's motion for summary judgment pursuant to the FTCA under the discretionary function exception, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a), the foreign country exception, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(k), the combatant activities exception, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(j), and the Feres doctrine, Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950). We affirm.
The district court, The Honorable William W. Schwarzer presiding, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, published as In re Consolidated U.S. Atmospheric Testing Litigation, 616 F.Supp. 759 (N.D.Cal.1985), accurately summarized the facts, analyzed the contentions of the parties, and properly applied the law to this case. The opinion is well reasoned, and we adopt, with appropriate deletions and additions, the following portions of it as the opinion of this court. 2
"In October 1984, Congress adopted Sec. 1631 of the Department of Energy National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1985, (the 'Act'),...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Piechowicz v. US
...or withdraw it from market was barred because of the discretionary function exception);29 In re Consolidated United States Atmospheric Testing Litigation, 820 F.2d 982, 996-99 (9th Cir.1987) (government's alleged failure to warn of radiation danger from nuclear testing or to take adequate s......
-
Barrosse v. Huntington Ingalls Inc.
...v. United States , 786 F.2d 8, 13 (1st Cir. 1986) ; In re TMI , 89 F.3d 1106, 1113 (3d Cir. 1996) ; In re Consolidated U.S. Atmospheric Testing Litig. , 820 F.2d 982, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1987) ).132 R. Doc. 124 at p. 19 (quoting Usery , 428 U.S. at 15, 96 S.Ct. 2882 ) (internal quotation marks......
-
Sánchez v. United States
...the discretionary function exception applies. See Loughlin v. United States, 393 F.3d 155 (D.C.Cir.2004); In re Consol. U.S. Atmospheric Testing Litig., 820 F.2d 982 (9th Cir.1987). In Loughlin, the D.C. Circuit rejected the argument that the government's decision to bury toxic World War I ......
-
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Fleischer
...Cyanamid Co., 888 F.2d 802, 805 (11th Cir.1989); Grimesy v. Huff, 876 F.2d 738, 741 (9th Cir.1989); In re Consol. U.S. Atmospheric Testing Litigation, 820 F.2d 982, 988 (9th Cir.1987); Hammond v. United States, 786 F.2d 8, 12 (1st Cir.1986); Jefferson Disposal Co. v. Parish of Jefferson, LA......
-
The Constitutional Validity of the Modification of Joint and Several Liability in the Washington Tort Reform Act of 1986 Gregory C. Sisk
...in statute withdrawing cause of action and thereby barring pending claim); In re Consolidated United States Atmospheric Testing Litig., 820 F.2d 982, 989 (9th Cir. 1987) (a cause of action "is inchoate and affords no definite or enforceable property right until reduced to final judgment"), ......