Anderegg v. United States

171 F.2d 127, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2790
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 30, 1948
Docket5811
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 171 F.2d 127 (Anderegg v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anderegg v. United States, 171 F.2d 127, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2790 (4th Cir. 1948).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant in an action for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act of August 2, 1946, 60 Stat. 842, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2671-2680. The action was instituted to recover for damage to property which occurred on January 2, 1945. It was not commenced until April 14, 1948, which was thus more than one year after either the accrual of the claim or the passage of the statute, which was too late. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(b). Contention is made that the limitation of the statute was waived because claim was filed with and considered by the War Department and not declined by it until November 1947; but it is elementary that the government may not be sued except in strict accord with the conditions which it has imposed and that neither action nor neglect on the part of governmental officers may extend the time for suit which Congress has limited. United States v. Michel, 282 U.S. 656, 51 S.Ct. 284, 75 L.Ed. 598. Not even a U. S. District Attorney may waive conditions or limitations imposed by statute in respect of suits against the United States. Munro v. United States 303 U.S. 36, 41, 58 S.Ct. 421, 82 L.Ed. 633; Finn v. United States, 123 U.S. 227, 233, 8 S.Ct. 82, 31 L.Ed. 128. Whether the limitation prescribed for suit by the Tort Claims Act be regarded as a condition of the right to sue or as a limitation upon the remedy would seem • to be immaterial; but it should be noted that the limitation is. imposed in the statute creating the right and the limitation in such case is ordinarily treated as a condition, as we pointed out in the note to State of Maryland v. Burkhardt, 4 Cir. 165 F.2d 869, 873.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Okutsu v. State.
528 P.3d 956 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2023)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong
575 U.S. 402 (Supreme Court, 2015)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong. United States
575 U.S. 402 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Bevelheimer v. United States
4 Cl. Ct. 558 (Court of Claims, 1984)
Kondo v. Katzenbach
356 F.2d 351 (D.C. Circuit, 1966)
Riley v. United States
248 F. Supp. 95 (D. Maryland, 1965)
Jackson v. United States
182 F. Supp. 907 (D. Maryland, 1960)
Sandridge v. Folsom
200 F. Supp. 25 (M.D. Tennessee, 1959)
Cole v. United States
170 F. Supp. 90 (E.D. Virginia, 1959)
United States v. Wilkes-Barre Transit Corp.
143 F. Supp. 413 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1956)
United States v. Bristow
142 F. Supp. 601 (E.D. Virginia, 1956)
Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co. v. United States
127 F. Supp. 931 (D. Delaware, 1955)
United States v. WH Pollard Company
124 F. Supp. 495 (N.D. California, 1954)
Menclewicz v. United States
116 F. Supp. 847 (W.D. New York, 1953)
Snyder v. Scofield
115 F. Supp. 356 (S.D. Texas, 1953)
Brown & Root, Inc. v. United States
92 F. Supp. 257 (S.D. Texas, 1950)
Connor v. United States
90 F. Supp. 1005 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
171 F.2d 127, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderegg-v-united-states-ca4-1948.