Federal Tort Claims Act. In General. Federal Prisoner May Sue United States for Injuries Resulting from Negligence of Prison Physician. Winston v. United States (2d Cir. 1962)

AbstractThis article analyses Jane Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front et al., an Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) case brought in the United States by the late Rhonda Copelon, a leading feminist international lawyer. Bennoune explores the experiences of the Jane Doe plaintiffs, exposing the limited legal avenues that were available to them at the time. She finds that Copelon's creative ATCA litigation strategy embodied a symbolic, feminist act in the paradoxical quest for justice, armed with the knowledge that it would likely become a losing battle. The article ultimately shows that the ACTA litigation, even if unsuccessful in the end, recognised that non-state actors can harm human rights, and provided a powerful avenue for expressing plaintiffs' grievances when no other court would hear them.

Download Full-text

United States as Third-Party Defendant under Federal Tort Claims Act: The Problem of Multiple Litigation and a Call for Statutory Reform

University of Pennsylvania Law Review ◽

10.2307/3310916 ◽

1967 ◽

Vol 115 (3) ◽

pp. 439

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Third Party ◽

Tort Claims

Download Full-text

United States: Amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Concerning Jurisdiction for Lawsuits Against Terrorist States, Including Technical Correction

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/s0020782900016235 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 36 (3) ◽

pp. 759-760

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

The United States ◽

Sovereign Immunity ◽

Extrajudicial Killing ◽

State Sponsor ◽

The U.S ◽

Tort Claims

Prior to the amendment, the non–commercial tort exception to sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(5), barred tort claims against foreign states where the tort and the resulting injury did not occur in the United States. New §1605(a)(7) denies immunity to states in suits involving torture, extrajudicial killing, hostage taking, and aircraft sabotage, committed outside the U.S. by an official, employee or agent of the offending state while acting within the scope of his employment or agency. The respondent state must have been designated by the Executive as a state sponsor of terrorism. To fall within this new jurisdictional grant, the claim must meet several preconditions, each of which has dispositive jurisdictional significance.

Download Full-text