United States v. Kubrick
- Decided
- November 28, 1979
- Docket
- 78-1014
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,486 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- ruling that statute of limitations under FTCA begins running when plaintiff knows both the existence and cause of his injury — Booth v. State of Maryland (1997)
- holding that when construing a waiver of sovereign immunity, we should not "assume the authority to narrow the waiver that Congress intended” — Vacchio v. Ashcroft (2005)
- holding that discovery of injury and its cause is the date from which to measure statute of limitations — In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*113] Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Act),[1] 28 U. S. C. § 2401 (b), a tort claim against the United States is barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency “within two years after such claim accrues." The issue in this case is whether the claim “accrues" within the meaning of the Act when the plaintiff knows both the existence and the cause of his injury or at a later time when he also knows that the acts inflicting the injury may constitute medical malpractice.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.