Source: https://sourcebook.acus.gov/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act/view
Timestamp: 2019-05-21 07:07:25
Document Index: 678025776

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1291', '§ 921', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 665', '§ 401', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 1101', '§ 2675', '§ 2672', '§ 2672', '§ 2673', '§ 2675', '§ 1402', '§ 2401', '§ 2675', '§ 2674', '§ 2678', '§ 2680', '§ 1', 'art 842', '§ 536', 'art 536', 'art 511', 'art 543', 'art 2', 'art 1280', 'art 35', 'art 1014', 'art 10', 'art 35', 'art 17', 'art 22', 'art 601', 'art 14', 'art 15', 'art 1261', 'art 793', '§ 530', 'art 750', 'art 14', 'art 177', 'art 304', 'art 912', 'art 114', '§ 530', 'art 3', 'art 1620', '§ 14', '§ 1346', '§ 1402', '§ 2402', '§ 2411', '§ 2412']

Federal Tort Claims Act - acus wiki
28 U.S. Code §§ 1291, 1346, 1402, 2401, 2402, 2411, 2412, 2671–2680 (originally 28 U.S.C. §§ 921–946); enacted as title IV of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 by Pub. L. No. 79-601, 60 Stat. 812–44, Aug. 2, 1946; significantly amended by Pub. L. No. 89-506, 80 Stat. 306, July 18, 1966; by Pub. L. No. 93-253, 88 Stat. 50, Mar. 16, 1974; by Pub. L. No. 100-694, 102 Stat. 4563–67, Nov. 18, 1988; by Pub. L. No. 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736, Nov. 15, 1990; by Pub. L. No. 102-572, 106 Stat. 4511, Oct. 29, 1992; by Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 863, Mar. 29, 1996; by Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321–75, Apr. 26, 1996; by Pub. L. No. 106-185, § 3(a), 114 Stat. 211, Apr. 25, 2000; by Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 1 [[div. A], title VI, § 665(b)], 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–169, Oct. 30, 2000; by Pub. L. No. 106-518, title IV, § 401, 114 Stat. 2421, Nov. 13, 2000; Pub. L. No. 111-350, § 5(g)(6), § 5(g)(8), § 5(g)(9), 124 Stat. 348, Jan. 4, 2011; Pub. L. No. 113-4, Title XI, § 1101(b), 127 Stat. 134, Mar, 7, 2013.
Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch, Federal Tort Claims Act Litigation Section
1.1 Administrative Claims
1.2 Court Claims
1.4 Related Statutes
Before 1946, the doctrine of sovereign immunity obliged almost all victims of government wrongdoing to seek relief via congressional enactment of a private bill. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waived this defense to permit damage actions against the United States for injury, loss of property, or death caused by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The FTCA provides that the United States shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances in accordance with the law of the place where the negligent or wrongful conduct occurred.
As first drafted, the FTCA sought to transfer to the federal courts primary responsibility for determining what redress was warranted, but amendments enacted in 1966 shifted much of that burden to the agencies. Claims must now be presented to the responsible agency as a prerequisite for suit (§ 2675(a)). The claim must be presented in writing within two years after it accrued, and the agency has a minimum of six months in which to act. If the agency fails to make a final disposition of the claim within that period, the claimant, at anytime thereafter, may treat that as a denial and file suit.
Agencies may settle claims under the FTCA in any amount, subject, however, to prior written approval by the Attorney General or his or her designee for settlements in excess of a specified level (§ 2672), and must exercise their settlement authority “in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General.” Each agency must also annually report to Congress all claims paid by it under 28 U.S.C. § 2672 (§ 2673).
As a result of the 1966 amendments, many agencies have established relatively elaborate procedures for the presentation, investigation, and administrative adjustment of tort claims. Today thousands of claims are disposed of at the agency level. Considerable litigation has occurred involving the statute of limitations and the sufficiency of claimants’ administrative filings, particularly over agencies’ authority to demand extensive information substantiating a claim and to regard a claim as invalid for all purposes when such data are not provided. A widely cited case, Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284, on reh., 622 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1980), holds that § 2675(a)’s mandate that a claim be filed initially with the agency requires only that the claimant place a monetary value on the claim and give sufficient written notice of the claim to enable the agency to conduct an investigation. Several prior decisions, see, e.g., Swift v. United States, 614 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1980), had required considerably more of claimants. To make the agency-level process more open and less adversarial, ACUS recommended a number of changes and called for some amendments to the FTCA and the Attorney General’s rules. Recommendation 84-7, Administrative Settlement of Tort and Other Monetary Claims Against the Government, 49 Fed. Reg. 49,840 (Dec. 24, 1984). The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 implemented some of these changes.
If administrative settlement efforts fail, the claimant may sue in the federal district court for the district in which either the alleged negligent or wrongful act occurred or the claimant resides (§ 1402(b)), provided that the administrative claim was properly presented within two years after it accrued and suit is brought within six months after the agency’s final denial (§ 2401(b)). Suit may be brought only against the United States, not against the federal agency. The only remedy under the FTCA is money damages; it does not authorize equitable remedies. The sum demanded in the lawsuit generally cannot exceed the amount of the claim presented to the agency (§ 2675(b)). Liability and damage standards, in most instances, are based on the law of the place where the negligent or wrongful act occurred, except that the United States is not liable for punitive damages or prejudgment interest (§ 2674). Jury trials are not authorized under the FTCA, and attorney fees are subject to a ceiling of 20 percent of the amount recovered in agency-level settlements and 25 percent of judgments and litigation settlements (§ 2678).
The FTCA contains more than a dozen exceptions (§ 2680). It does not apply, for example, to:
claims arising in a foreign country;
claims based upon the performance of a discretionary function;
claims arising out of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty;
claims covered by certain other statutes;
claims arising out of libel, slander, deceit, or interference with contract; and
claims arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, or abuse of process, except when based upon acts or omissions of federal investigative or law enforcement officers occurring after 1974.
In addition, the FTCA does not apply to claims of members of the armed forces arising out of activity incident to their service. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950). Nor does it apply to injury claims of civilian federal employees arising in the performance of duty (their exclusive remedy against the government is under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act).
Congress considered several bills during the 1980s that would have expanded the FTCA to cover agency employees’ actions that violate constitutional or statutory rights. Another subject of considerable commentary and legislative interest has been the scope of the discretionary function exception. None of the bills relating to these matters has received approval, and federal employees remain subject to personal damage suits for so-called constitutional torts.
In 1988, Congress did modify the FTCA to render it the exclusive remedy for common-law torts—as opposed to actions that violate constitutional or statutory rights—committed by federal employees within the scope of their employment. This legislation was necessitated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U.S. 292 (1988), which dramatically expanded the personal tort liability of federal employees. The 1988 amendments also made explicit that activities of officials of the judicial and legislative branches are covered by the FTCA and preserved for the United States any defenses based upon judicial or legislative immunity that could have been asserted by the official individually.
Besides the FTCA, more than 40 “meritorious claims” and other ancillary statutes afford an administrative or judicial remedy for certain additional kinds of losses occasioned by governmental action. These statutes vary considerably as to kinds of claims covered, claimants eligible, remedies available, proof required, and procedures followed. They include the Military Claims Act (Pub. L. No. 78-112), the Foreign Claims Act (Pub. L. No. 77-393), National Guard Claims Acts (Pub. L. No. 86-740), Small Claims Act (Pub. L. No. 67-375), Copyright Infringement Act, Trading with the Enemy Act (Pub. L. No. 65-91), Public Vessels Act (Pub. L. No. 68-546), Suits in Admiralty Act (Pub. L. No. 66-156), and statutes covering some actions of the Departments of State, Agriculture, HHS, and Justice; NASA; the NRC; the Peace Corps; and the Postal Service. They are catalogued and discussed in Lester Jayson’s Handling Federal Tort Claims and George Bermann’s Administrative Handling of Monetary Claims.
Efforts at passage of legislation similar to the FTCA began in the 1920s; a measure with similar purposes was passed by the 70th Congress but met with a pocket veto by President Coolidge. Twin bills in many respects identical to the present Act, H.R. 7236 and S. 2690, were introduced in the 76th Congress in 1940. H.R. 7236 passed the House, but after hearings the Senate Judiciary Committee did not report S. 2690, and the measure died. In the 77th Congress, the Senate passed S. 2221. After hearings on similar measures introduced by Representative Emanuel Celler, H.R. 5373 and H.R. 6463, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported the Senate measure favorably, with amendments, but the full House did not consider it. As thus amended, S. 2221 is a virtual duplicate of the FTCA finally passed by the 79th Congress in 1946.
Because of this similarity, the hearings and reports on the 1940 and 1942 measures are valuable source material in analyzing the FTCA, especially as the hearings and reports on the 1946 FTCA are relatively sparse. As Lester Jayson noted in discussing the more than 30 prior bills introduced in this area, “since many of the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act as it exists today have their genesis in these proposals, and since many of these provisions were the subjects of discussion and explanation at committee hearings and in committee reports, it often may prove to be fruitful, if not crucial to [the practitioner’s] presentation and preparation of a case involving the meaning or interpretation of some part of the existing law, to examine its legislative history, and to review these earlier bills and hearings and reports.”
The most comprehensive FTCA sources are Paul Figley’s A Guide to the Federal Tort Claims Act (2012), Jayson and Longstreth’s multi-volume Handling Federal Tort Claims (2007), treating FTCA litigation exhaustively, and George Bermann’s Administrative Handling of Monetary Claims (1984), examining at length the operation of agencies’ settlement processes and basic legal and procedural questions thereunder. Donald Zillman’s Presenting a Claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (1983) gives valuable information on presenting a claim. A useful note titled The Federal Tort Claims Act, 56 Yale L.J. 534 (1947), examines the tort claims bills introduced between 1925 and 1946 along with significant committee reports and hearings relating to them.
The literature on officials’ constitutional tort liability (especially from the 1970s and 1980s) is vast, and Thomas Madden and Nicholas Allard’s Advice on Official Liability and Immunity (1982) contains an extensive annotated bibliography. Suing Government (1983) offers an overview of issues relating to constitutional tort liability.
Other articles deal with the government’s potential liability in a variety of specific situations, including negligent occupational, mine, or airplane safety inspections; improper customs seizures; weather forecasts; parole of dangerous criminals; atomic testing; and medical or other cases involving the military.
Hearings on H.R. 7236, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 76th Cong. (1940).
Hearings on S. 2690, Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 76th Cong. (1940).
S. Rep. No. 1400 (1941).
S. Rep. No. 1196 (1941).
Hearings on H.R. 5373 and H.R. 6463, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 77th Cong. (1942).
H.R. Rep. No. 2245 (1942).
H.R. Rep. No. 1287 (1945).
Hearings Pursuant to H. Con. Res. 18, Before the Joint Comm. on the Org. of Cong., 79th Cong. (1945).
Hearings on Improvement of Procedures in Claims Settlement and Government Litigation, Before Subcomm. No. 2 of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong. (1966).
H.R. Rep. No. 1532 (1966).
S. Rep. No. 1327 (1966).
H.R. Rep. No. 100-700 (1988).
82-6 Federal Officials’ Liability for Constitutional Violations
Henry Cohen, Cong. Research Serv., 95-717A, Federal Tort Claims Act: Current Legislative and Judicial Issues (2001).
Henry Cohen, Cong. Research Serv., RL31649, Homeland Security Act of 2002: Tort Liability Provisions (2005).
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Torts Branch Monographs (1981-2006). This is a series of monographs presenting the Department of Justice’s views on administrative claims, statute of limitations, the scope and effect of the discretionary function and other exceptions, and other significant substantive and procedural issues arising under the FTCA.
Gen. Accounting Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (3 vols. 1994).
John Astley, Note, United States v. Johnson: Feres Doctrine Gets New Life and Continues to Grow, 38 Am. U. L. Rev. 185 (1989).
Jeffrey Axelrad, Federal Tort Claims Act Administrative Claims: Better Than Third-Party ADR for Resolving Federal Tort Claims, 52 Admin. L. Rev. 1331 (2000).
Jeffry Axelrad, Litigation Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 8 Litig. 22 (ABA Section on Litig., 1981).
Aaron J. Baer & Harold Broder, How to Prepare and Negotiate Claims for Settlement (1973).
D. Scott Barash, Comment, The Discretionary Function Exception and Mandatory Regulations, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1300 (1987).
George A. Bermann, Administrative Handling of Monetary Claims: Tort Claims at the Agency Level (Oct. 1984) (report to ACUS).
Joseph D. Block, Suits Against Government Officers and the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine, 59 Harv. L. Rev. 1060 (1946).
Edwin M. Borchard, The Federal Tort Claims Bill, 1 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (1933).
George D. Brown, Letting Statutory Tails Wag Constitutional Dogs: Have the Bivens Dissenters Prevailed?, 64 Ind. L.J. 263 (1989).
Jonathan R. Bruno, Note, Immunity for “Discretionary” Functions: A Proposal to Amend the Federal Tort Claims Act, 49 Harv. J. on Legis. 411 (2012).
Ronald A. Cass, The Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (Dec. 8, 1988) (report to ACUS).
Civil Actions Against the United States, Its Agencies, Officers and Employees (Shepard’s/McGraw-Hill, 2d ed., 1993).
Ugo Colella & Adam Bain, The Burden of Proving Jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act: A Uniform Approach to Allocation, 67 Fordham L. Rev. 2859 (1999).
Ugo Colella, Revisiting Equitable Tolling and the Federal Tort Claims Act: Putting the Legislative History in Proper Perspective, 31 Seton Hall L. Rev. 174 (2000).
Kenneth Culp Davis, Constitutional Torts (1984).
David L. De Courcy, Note, Administrative Exhaustion under the Federal Tort Claims Act: The Impact on Class Actions, 58 B.U.L. Rev. 627 (1978).
Mia Donnelly, Note, Fighting Feres: Creating a VA Benefits Program for the Children of Servicemembers Injured by Parental Exposure¸ 83 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 837 (2015).
Paul Figley, A Guide to the Federal Torts Claims Act (ABA Section of Admin. Law & Regulatory Practice, 2012).
Paul Figley, In Defense of Feres: An Unfairly Maligned Opinion, 60 Am. U. L. Rev. 393 (2011).
Paul Figley, Understanding the Federal Tort Claims Act: A Different Metaphor, 44 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 1105 (2009).
Stanton R. Gallegos, Note, Are Police People Too? An Examination of the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “Private Person” Standard as It Applies to Federal Law Enforcement Activities, 76 Brook. L. Rev. 775 (2011).
Major Jeffrey B. Garber, The (Too) Long Arm of Tort Law: Expanding the Federal Tort Claims Act’s Combatant Activities Immunity Exception to Fit the New Reality of Contractors on the Battlefield, 2016 Army Law. 12 (2016).
Walter Gellhorn & Louis Lauer, Federal Liability for Personal and Property Damage, 29 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1325 (1954).
Irvin M. Gottlieb, A New Approach to the Handling of Tort Claims against the Sovereign (1967).
Irvin M. Gottlieb, The Federal Tort Claims Act: A Statutory Interpretation, 35 Geo. L.J. 1 (1946).
Clyde A. Haig, Discretionary Activities of Federal Agents vis-a-vis the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Military Claims Act: Are Discretionary Activities Protected at the Administrative Adjudication Level, and to What Extent Should They Be Protected?, 183 Mil. L. Rev. 110 (2005).
A.G. Harmon, “Should” or “Must”?: Distinguishing Mandates from Guidelines in Tort Claims Contexts, 118 W. Va. L. Rev. 1007 (2016).
Vicki C. Jackson, Suing the Federal Government: Sovereignty, Immunity, and Judicial Independence, 35 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 521 (2003).
Lester C. Jayson & Robert C. Longstreth, Handling Federal Tort Claims (multiple vols., updated periodically) (LexisNexis).
R. Todd Johnson, Comment, In Defense of the Government Contractor Defense, 36 Cath. U.L. Rev. 219 (1986).
Daniel W. Kilduff, Tort, Taking, or Both?, 42 Fed. Law. 25 (1995).
William P. Kratzke, The Convergence of the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act with Limitations of Liability in Common Law Negligence, 60 St. John’s L. Rev. 221 (1986).
Thomas J. Madden & Nicholas W. Allard, Advice on Official Liability and Immunity (1982) (report to ACUS).
Jason Malone, Derivative Immunity: The Impact of Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 50 Creighton L. Rev. 87 (2016).
Jack W. Massey, Note, A Proposal to Narrow the Assault and Battery Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1621 (2004).
Fred S. McChesney, Problems in Calculating and Awarding Compensatory Damages for Wrongful Death under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 36 Emory L.J. 149 (1987).
Ann McGuire, Note, The Quality of Mercy Is Not Strained: Interpreting the Notice Requirement of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 97 Mich. L. Rev. 1034 (1999).
Stephen L. Nelson, The King’s Wrongs and the Federal District Courts: Understanding the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 51 S. Tex. L. Rev. 259 (2009).
Mark C. Niles, “Nothing but Mischief”: The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Scope of Discretionary Immunity, 54 Admin. L. Rev. 1275 (2002).
Note, Claim Requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act: Minimal Notice or Substantial Documentation?, 81 Mich. L. Rev. 1641 (1983).
Note, Federal Tort Claims Act: Notice of Claim Requirement, 67 Minn. L. Rev. 513 (1982).
Katherine C. Pearson, Departing from the Routine: Application of Indian Tribal Law Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 32 Ariz. St. L. J. 695 (2000).
Hildegarde Conte Perlstein, TDRL and the Feres Doctrine, 43 A.F.L. Rev. 259 (1997).
Bruce A. Peterson & Mark Van Der Weide, Susceptible to Faulty Analysis: United States v. Gaubert and the Resurrection of Federal Sovereign Immunity, 72 Notre Dame L. Rev. 447 (1997).
Cornelia T.L. Pillard, Taking Fiction Seriously: The Strange Results of Public Officials’ Individual Liability Under Bivens, 88 Geo. L. J. 65 (1999).
Daniel Shane Read, The Courts’ Difficult Balancing Act to Be Fair to Both Plaintiff and Government under the FTCA’s Administrative Claims Process, 57 Baylor L. Rev. 785 (2005).
Alexander A. Reinert, Measuring the Success of Bivens Litigation and Its Consequences for the Individual Liability Model, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 809 (2010).
Perry M. Rosen, The Bivens Constitutional Tort: An Unfulfilled Promise, 67 N.C. L. Rev. 337 (1989).
John Sackett, Comment, The Art of Claimsmanship: What Constitutes Sufficient Notice of a Claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act?, 52 U. Cin. L. Rev. 149 (1983).
Peter H. Schuck, Suing Government: Citizen Remedies for Official Wrongs (1983).
Richard H. Seamon, Causation and the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 30 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 691 (1997).
David E. Seidelson, From Feres v. United States to Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.: An Examination of Supreme Court Jurisprudence and a Couple of Suggestions, 32 Duq. L. Rev. 219 (1994).
Floyd D. Shimomura, The History of Claims Against the United States: The Evolution from a Legislative Toward a Judicial Model of Payment, 45 La. L. Rev. 625 (1985).
Gregory C. Sisk, Judicial Review of Personal Injury Claims by Federal Civilian Employees: Navigating Between the Shoals of FECA and the Crest of the FTCA, 51 Tort & Ins. L.J. 893 (2016).
Joshua M. Snyder, Note, The Requirement of Scope of Employment under the Federal Tort Claims Act: Where Is the Line? Scrutinizing Primeaux v. United States, 33 Creighton L. Rev. 465 (2000).
Symposium, Government Tort Liability, 9 Law & Contemp. Prob. No. 2 (1942).
Jonathan Turley, Pax Militaris: The Feres Doctrine and the Retention of Sovereign Immunity in the Military System of Governance, 71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2003).
Jared M. Viders, Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Training—The Scope of the Assault and Battery Exception: Senger v. United States, 39 B.C. L. Rev. 452 (1998).
Sean Watts, Note, Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. and the Government Contractor Defense: An Analysis Based on the Current Circuit Split Regarding the Scope of the Defense, 40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 687 (1999).
Donald N. Zillman, Presenting a Claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 43 La. L. Rev. 961 (1983).
Donald N. Zillman, Congress, Courts, and Government Tort Liability: Reflections on the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 1989 Utah L. Rev. 687 (1987).
Donald N. Zillman, Protecting Discretion: Judicial Interpretation of the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 47 Me. L. Rev. 366 (1995).
Agriculture (7 C.F.R. § 1.51)
Air Force (Defense) (32 C.F.R. Part 842)
Army (Defense) (32 C.F.R. §§ 536.50, Part 536, Subpt. D)
Broadcasting Board of Governors (22 C.F.R. Part 511)
Bureau of Prisons (Justice) (28 C.F.R. Part 543)
Commerce (15 C.F.R. Part 2)
Defense Logistics Agency (32 C.F.R. Part 1280)
Education (34 C.F.R. Part 35)
Energy (10 C.F.R. Part 1014)
Environmental Protection Agency (40 C.F.R. Part 10)
Health & Human Services (45 C.F.R. Part 35)
Housing and Urban Development (24 C.F.R. Part 17, Subpt. A)
Interior (43 C.F.R. Part 22)
Internal Revenue Service (Treasury) (26 C.F.R. Part 601
Justice (28 C.F.R. Part 14)
Labor (29 C.F.R. Part 15, Subpt. B)
NASA (14 C.F.R. Part 1261, Subpt. 1261.3)
National Credit Union Administration (12 C.F.R. Part 793)
National Gallery of Art (36 C.F.R. § 530.1)
Navy (Defense) (32 C.F.R. Part 750, Subpt. B)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 C.F.R. Part 14)
Office of Personnel Management (5 C.F.R. Part 177)
Peace Corps (22 C.F.R. Part 304)
Postal Service (39 C.F.R. Part 912)
Small Business Administration (13 C.F.R. Part 114)
Smithsonian Institution (36 C.F.R. § 530.1)
Treasury (31 C.F.R. Part 3, Subpt. A)
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (40 C.F.R. Part 1620)
Veterans Affairs (38 C.F.R. §§ 14.600-.605, .615-.617)
§ 1346. United States as defendant (District Courts; Jurisdiction)
§ 1402. United States as defendant (District Courts; Venue)
§ 2402. Jury trial in actions against the United States
§ 2411. Interest
§ 2412. Costs and fees
Retrieved from "https://sourcebook.acus.gov/index.php?title=Federal_Tort_Claims_Act&oldid=1428"
This page was last edited on 12 December 2018, at 12:53.