Hubsch v. United States Schweitzer v. United States
| Citation | 94 L.Ed. 244,70 S.Ct. 225,338 U.S. 440 |
| Decision Date | 25 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | 380,Nos. 379,s. 379 |
| Parties | HUBSCH v. UNITED STATES. SCHWEITZER v. UNITED STATES. On Application for Approval of Settlement |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
We granted writs of certiorari in these cases, 338 U.S. 814, 70 S.Ct. 44, to review a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 174 F.2d 7, affirming judgments of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida in favor of the United States on claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Before argument, petitioners and the Solicitor General submitted a joint application for approval of proposed settlements of the claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2677, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2677, which reads as follows:
'The Attorney General, with the approval of the court, may arbitrate, compromise, or settle any claim cognizable under section 1346(b) of this title (suits under the Tort Claims Act), after commencement of an action thereon.'
We construe § 2677 as imposing on the District Court the authority and responsibility for passing on proposed compromises, notwithstanding the judgments of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgments of the District Court heretofore entered herein. The application and stipulations are therefore referred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida with authority to consider and dispose of the same. It is so ordered.
Remanded.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., v. Meyer
...not contain the term. We therefore find Smith unhelpful in this regard. 7 Nothing in our decision in Hubsch v. United States, 338 U.S. 440, 70 S.Ct. 225, 94 L.Ed. 244 (1949) (per curiam), is to the contrary. In Hubsch, the parties submitted to this Court for approval a settlement agreement ......
-
Lowry v. U.S., Civil Action No. 91-11233-MLW.
...immunity statute, was subject to the strict construction rule. Hubsch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 7, remanded 338 U.S. 440, 70 S.Ct. 225, 94 L.Ed. 244, dismissed on motion of petitioner 340 U.S. 804, 71 S.Ct. 35, 95 L.Ed. 590. The view expressed in the Hubsch case must yield to......
-
Rodriguez v. United States
...Cir., Mass., 1952); Hubsch v. United States, 174 F.2d 7 (5th Cir., Fla., 1949), compromised after grant of certiorari, 338 U.S. 440, 70 S.Ct. 225, 94 L. Ed. 244 (1949); Williams v. United States, 105 F.Supp. 208, 209 (ND Cal. 1952), considered on other grounds 350 U.S. 857, 76 S.Ct. 100, 10......
-
Fdic v. Meyer
...does not contain the term. We therefore find Smith unhelpful in this regard. 7. Nothing in our decision in Hubsch v. United States, 338 U. S. 440 (1949) (per curiam), is to the contrary. In Hubsch, the parties submitted to this Court for approval a settlement agreement under 28 U. S. C. § 2......