Myers v. United States
Decision Date | 16 October 1963 |
Docket Number | 18544.,No. 18543,18543 |
Citation | 323 F.2d 580 |
Parties | A. J. MYERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and McLaughlin, Inc., a corporation, Appellees. Walter James WEAVER, et ux., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America and McLaughlin, Inc., a corporation, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James K. Tallman, William H. Sanders and Bailey E. Bell, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellants.
Warren C. Colver, U. S. Atty., James R. Clouse, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Hughes, Thorsness & Love, and David H. Thorsness, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellees.
Before BARNES, HAMLEY and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges.
Each of the appellants appeals from a judgment of the District Court denying recovery of damages sought against each appellee. The two cases were consolidated for trial before the District Court, and have been consolidated for hearing before this Court. Trial was to the court and the opinion of the District Court will be found in 210 F.Supp. commencing at page 695.
The cause was tried on a second amended complaint of each appellant. In each complaint, each appellant sought to recover damages against the United States and McLaughlin, Inc., a corporation, arising out of the construction by McLaughlin, Inc., of a road known as the Wasilla-Big Lake Junction Road, under contract with the Bureau of Public Roads in the year 1959, across portions of land to which the appellants claimed ownership under patents issued to them by the United States.
Jurisdiction of the District Court as to the cause of action alleged in each complaint, in respect to the United States, was invoked under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2674,1 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(a).2
Jurisdiction of the District Court as to the cause of action alleged in each complaint in respect to McLaughlin, Inc., was invoked by virtue of the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (1), which provides that the District Court has jurisdiction in cases involving diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy is in excess of $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
In his complaint, appellant Myers sought judgment against the appellees in the sum of $60,203.20. In their complaint, appellants Weaver sought judgment against the appellees in the sum of $73,046.50.
Appellant Myers contended in his complaint and at the trial that in the construction of the road by appellee McLaughlin, Inc., under contract with the Bureau of Public Roads, the appellees committed waste and other trespasses on his land and damaged his land in the following particulars:
Appellants Weaver contended in their complaint and at the trial that in the construction of the road by appellee McLaughlin, Inc., under contract with the Bureau of Public Roads, the appellees committed waste and other trespasses on their land and damaged their land in the following particulars:
The claims for damages by the appellants arose from the following circumstances: Prior to the issuance of the patents to the appellants, the lands were public lands of the United States, and at the time of the issuance of the patents there existed a road or trail across portions of the lands in question which the Government had maintained at an approximate width of sixty-six feet. The appellants contended at the trial that the maintenance of the road by the Government constituted its election, under reservations contained in the patents, for a road right-of-way 100 feet in width across the lands of appellant Myers, and a right-of-way 66 feet in width across the lands of appellants Weaver, and that the acts committed by the appellees were done outside of such right-of-way. Appellee contended that it had properly reserved a right-of-way for a roadway 300 feet wide. The District Court found unconditionally that the right-of-way reserved to the government was for a road right-of-way 300 feet wide.
In view of the disposition to be made of this case insofar as appellee, United States of America, is concerned, we do not reach the merits of these conflicting contentions. We have reached the conclusion that the District Court was without jurisdiction of the causes of action asserted against the United States.
It is to be noted that under Section 1346, the jurisdiction of the District Court is concurrent with that of the Court of Claims in respect to any civil action or claims therein mentioned against the United States, not exceeding, however, $10,000 in amount. We also note 28 U.S.C. § 1491, which, in its relevant part, provides:
"The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc.
...F.3d 326, 345 (4th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Yearsley, 309 U.S. at 22, 60 S.Ct. 413 ); see also Myers v. United States, 323 F.2d 580, 583 (9th Cir. 1963) (stating that a government contractor is not liable under Yearsley if the work was done under the contract and in conf......
-
Annunziato v. The Gan, Inc.
...pursuant to valid contract with government held not liable for alleged constitutional injury caused by its actions.) Myers v. United States, 323 F.2d 580 (9th Cir.1963) (private company acting under contract with government held not liable for inverse condemnation damages where company was ......
-
Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States
...Seamans, 411 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 941, 90 S.Ct. 953, 25 L.Ed.2d 121 (1970). Similarly, in Myers v. United States, 323 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1963), the court determined that a suit in the nature of inverse condemnation, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court ......
-
McKay v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.
...complying with government specifications during execution of performance of a contract with the United States. See Myers v. United States, 323 F.2d 580, 583 (9th Cir.1963). The rule has been applied when the United States is immune from suit. Dolphin Gardens, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.Su......
-
Takings, torts and turmoil: reviewing the authority requirement of the Just Compensation Clause.
...States, 4 Cl. Ct. 755 (1984). (127.) Id. at 759. This rule is generally, but not universally, accepted. Compare Myers v. United States, 323 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1963) (transferring a case to the Court of Claims where the damages plaintiffs asserted appeared to be merely property damage) with ......
-
The Ninth Circuit Errs Again: the Quiet Title Act as a Bar to Judicial Review
...acquires title to, or rights in, that part of the public domain takes and holds subject to the right-of-way for such road."), aff'd 323 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1963). [152]43 U.S.C. 1634(a)(1) (2000). [153] Alaska v. Babbitt (Bryant), 182 F.3d 672, 674-75 (9th Cir. 1999). [154]Id. at 676. [155] ......
-
Derivative Immunity: the Impact of Campbell-ewald Co. v. Gomez
...contractor who followed commands of a foreign sovereign can claim derivative sovereign immunity as in Yearsley); Myers v. United States, 323 F.2d 580, 583 (9th Cir. 1963) (applying Yearsley to property loss resulting from highway construction); Papa-gianakis v. Samos, 186 F.2d 257, 260-62 (......