BUB DAVIS PACKING CO., INC., v. UNITED STATES

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 78-1236. Summary Calendar.

Attorney(S)

J. P. Darrouzet, Austin, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant. Jamie C. Boyd, U.S. Atty., Harold O. Atkinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Judges

Irving Loeb Goldberg
Robert Andrew Ainsworth

Acts

Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — Tort Claims Procedure — Particular Proceedings — Definitions
Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — Tort Claims Procedure — Particular Proceedings — Exceptions

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Agents of the United States Department of Agriculture seized certain meat from the plant of Appellant, Bub Davis Packing Company, Inc. The plant was forced to close for a period of approximately twenty four hours when the Government inspectors were withdrawn. Appellant brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2671-2680. The suit was tried before the District Court without a jury. The District Court entered judgment based upon a detailed Memorandum Opinion: Bub Davis Packing Co., Inc. v. United States, 443 F. Supp. 589 (W.D.Tex. 1977). The appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seeks review of that judgment. (Docket No. 78-1236; opinion dated November 17, 1978; rehearing denied January 4, 1979.)

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the District Court's holding regarding the "Due Care" provision of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a) provides a sufficient basis to resolve the jurisdictional issues under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Whether jurisdiction is barred under the "Discretionary Function" exception of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a) (not reached by the Court of Appeals).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bub Davis Packing Co., Inc. v. United States, 443 F. Supp. 589 (W.D.Tex. 1977)	District Court's holding regarding the "Due Care" provision of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a).	The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and relied on the District Court's holding regarding the "Due Care" provision as a sufficient basis to resolve the jurisdictional issues; the Court expressly did not reach the alternative "Discretionary Function" exception.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeals reviewed the record on appeal and the parties' arguments, and concluded that the District Court's holding on the "Due Care" provision of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a) provided a sufficient basis for resolving the jurisdictional questions presented. Because that ground was dispositive, the Court affirmed solely on that basis and expressly declined to address the alternative jurisdictional contention under the "Discretionary Function" exception of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a).

Holding and Implications

AFFIRMED.

Direct effect: The judgment of the District Court in favor of the defendant was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit. The Court did not decide the alternative issue concerning the "Discretionary Function" exception. No broader implications are discussed in the opinion, and no new precedent beyond the affirmation on the "Due Care" basis is established by this opinion.

Show full summary ...

BUB DAVIS PACKING CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

PER CURIAM:

Agents of the United States Department of Agriculture seized certain meat from the plant of Appellant, Bub Davis Packing Company, Inc., and the plant was forced to close for a period of approximately twenty four hours when the Government inspectors were withdrawn. Appellant brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2671- 2680. The suit was tried before the District Court, without a jury, and, after considering all the evidence and arguments of the parties, the District Court entered a judgment based upon a detailed Memorandum Opinion. Bub Davis Packing Co., Inc. v. United States, 443 F. Supp. 589 (W.D.Tex. 1977).

After careful consideration of the record on appeal and the parties' arguments, we affirm the judgment appealed from. Since the District Court's holding regarding the "Due Care" provision of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a) provides a sufficient basis for the resolution of the jurisdictional issues, we affirm that issue solely on that basis. Id. at 593, Part III.A. We expressly do not reach the alternative jurisdictional issue under the "Discretionary Function" exception of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a). Id. at 593-95, Part III.B.

AFFIRMED.