United States v. Nora A. Myers, United States of America v. Nora A. Myers, of the Estate of Chester Myers

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Nora A. Myers, United States of America v. Nora A. Myers, of the Estate of Chester Myers

331 F.2d 591, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5401

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 1964

Docket17531, 17532

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 331 F.2d 591 (United States v. Nora A. Myers, United States of America v. Nora A. Myers, of the Estate of Chester Myers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Nora A. Myers, United States of America v. Nora A. Myers, of the Estate of Chester Myers, 331 F.2d 591, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5401 (8th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.) cases, the Government stipulated: that a soldier, traveling under temporary travel authority and not deviating therefrom, while driving his own automobile on a highway in the State of Colorado, was negligent in causing injury and damage to the appellees. In the light thereof, these parties conceded that the only issue bearing on the Government’s liability for the damage sustained by the ap-pellees, is whether the soldier was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the above accident. The District Court, applying the law of the State of Colorado, resolved that singular issue against the Government’s contention, in Myers v. United States, 219 F.Supp. 71 (D.C.W.D.Mo.1963). That single issue is all that is presented to us in these appeals.

We have carefully examined the record and duly considered the briefs and contentions of these parties as to the applicable law, federal, as well as that of the State of Colorado, which they concede to be controlling; and which we deem is all that is worthy of our consideration in these appeals. Such law was also considered by District Judge Becker, and applied to the stipulated facts here to be considered, in the course of his memorandum opinion, supra. “That opinion and the briefs of the parties have convinced us that the judgments) appealed from (represent), at the very least, a permissible conclusion with respect to a doubtful question of *592 [Colorado] law, which this Court will not reverse.” State Securities Company, etc. v. Federated Mutual Implement and Hardware Insurance Company, etc., 308 F.2d 452 (8 Cir. 1962), and cases there cited. See also, Village of Brooten v. Cudahy Packing Company, 291 F.2d 284, 301 (8 Cir. 1960).

The judgments appealed from are affirmed-

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

PER CURIAM.

In these Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.) cases, the Government stipulated: that a soldier, traveling under temporary travel authority and not deviating therefrom, while driving his own automobile on a highway in the State of Colorado, was negligent in causing injury and damage to the appellees. In the light thereof, these parties conceded that the only issue bearing on the Government’s liability for the damage sustained by the ap-pellees, is whether the soldier was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the above accident. The District Court, applying the law of the State of Colorado, resolved that singular issue against the Government’s contention, in Myers v. United States, 219 F.Supp. 71 (D.C.W.D.Mo.1963). That single issue is all that is presented to us in these appeals.

We have carefully examined the record and duly considered the briefs and contentions of these parties as to the applicable law, federal, as well as that of the State of Colorado, which they concede to be controlling; and which we deem is all that is worthy of our consideration in these appeals. Such law was also considered by District Judge Becker, and applied to the stipulated facts here to be considered, in the course of his memorandum opinion, supra. “That opinion and the briefs of the parties have convinced us that the judgments) appealed from (represent), at the very least, a permissible conclusion with respect to a doubtful question of *592 [Colorado] law, which this Court will not reverse.” State Securities Company, etc. v. Federated Mutual Implement and Hardware Insurance Company, etc., 308 F.2d 452 (8 Cir. 1962), and cases there cited. See also, Village of Brooten v. Cudahy Packing Company, 291 F.2d 284, 301 (8 Cir. 1960).

The judgments appealed from are affirmed-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 F.2d 591, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nora-a-myers-united-states-of-america-v-nora-a-myers-ca8-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack