In Loge v. United States, plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Roger Loge sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare negligently licensed a live polio vaccine (Orimune) without sufficient safety testing or warnings for non-recipients who could contract the disease through shed virus from inoculated individuals, after Mrs. Loge became permanently paralyzed following her infant son's vaccination. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint. It reasoned that the challenged actions involved discretionary functions in licensing and regulating vaccines, which are exempt from FTCA liability under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), that the government owed no duty to third parties under Arkansas tort law as analyzed under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, and that no constitutional violation of privacy, due process, or other rights occurred.
federal powertorts & liabilityhealthcarecivil rights
In this case, the Springdale School District sought a ruling that the Arkansas School for the Deaf was the appropriate placement for Sherry Grace, a profoundly deaf child, rather than providing specialized instruction in the local public schools. The parents counterclaimed for an order requiring the district to hire a certified teacher of the deaf using total communication methods and to offer a summer program to address educational shortfalls from the prior year. The court held that the district must implement the individualized education plan (IEP) by providing a qualified teacher employing total communication for the 1980-81 school year, but denied the request for a summer program due to insufficient time for implementation. The decision rested on federal requirements under 20 U.S.C. § 1415 for appropriate education tailored to the child's needs as outlined in the IEP, while noting that the child would remain in the local district given her parents' residence there.
This case involved Arkansas owners of Volkswagen vehicles who filed a class action lawsuit alleging defects in the fuel injection systems of their cars and seeking damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction for free repairs under warranties pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Federal Warranty Act, along with diversity jurisdiction. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that federal jurisdiction under the Magnuson-Moss Act for class actions requires at least 100 named plaintiffs at the time jurisdiction is invoked, which was not met with only two named plaintiffs, and no alternative jurisdiction existed under diversity, general federal question, or commerce statutes due to amount-in-controversy limits.
In Reeves v. Mabry, Rodney Dale Reeves filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Arkansas state conviction for theft by receiving a stolen automobile and habitual criminal status, claiming violations of his rights to counsel at a preliminary hearing, due process from admission of evidence of other crimes, and proper enhancement of his sentence using prior conviction records. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, after an evidentiary hearing and review of the state court transcripts, dismissed the petition. The court reasoned that state remedies had been exhausted, the evidence of other vehicles was properly admitted under Arkansas Rule 404(b) to prove knowledge and identity, the docket entries sufficiently supported the habitual offender finding without constitutional defect, and the petitioner had not shown any denial of due process or fair trial. The court concluded the evidence against Reeves was overwhelming and no relief was warranted under the habeas statute.
Maria Henson sued for a declaration that an Arkansas Army National Guard regulation was unconstitutional and for an injunction to allow her enlistment. The regulation disqualified unmarried applicants with minor dependents unless they relinquished custody by court order. Defendants moved to dismiss, contending the claim was not justiciable and that military regulations warranted limited judicial oversight. The court found subject-matter jurisdiction existed but applied the Mindes v. Seamon factors, determining that the equal-protection and due-process claims lacked strength because the regulation involved no suspect class or undue burden on family choices, the harm to the plaintiff was not compelling, and military personnel policies required deference, resulting in dismissal for failure to state a claim.
This case involved a challenge by four existing Arkansas savings and loan associations to a Federal Home Loan Bank Board resolution approving a branch office application by First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Harrison in Bentonville. The court reviewed the administrative record under standards requiring affirmance unless the Board misapplied the law or acted arbitrarily or capriciously. It upheld the Board's findings that the branch was necessary, had a reasonable probability of success, and would not cause undue injury to existing institutions, while rejecting claims that the full administrative record was incomplete and that an environmental impact statement was required under NEPA. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' petition for review.
business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal powerprocedure