Citing references: Jose Serra, Cross-Appellant v. Paul A. Pichardo, Cross-Appellee, Robert Elsea, Defendant-Cross-Appellee

651 F. Supp. 571 N.D. TexasNovember 24, 1986

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Cir.1986). II. DISCUSSION If the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. Sutherland Stat. Const. § 46.01 (4th Ed. 1984), citing Caminetti v.

James King v. United States

917 F.3d 409 Sixth CircuitFebruary 25, 2019

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Cir. 1986), the district court granted judgment for the plaintiff on the merits of his FTCA claim. Id. at 237 .

Robert Arevalo v. Chuck Woods

811 F.2d 487 Ninth CircuitFebruary 24, 1987

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986).

Manning v. United States

546 F.3d 430 Seventh CircuitOctober 6, 2008

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239-40 (6th Cir.1986)).

Manning, Steven v. United States

Seventh CircuitOctober 6, 2008

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239-40 (6th Cir. 1986)). Rather, he argues that the judgment bar should not apply to claims raised in the same action, and, alternatively, that the judgment bar should not apply retroactively to nullify a previous Bivens judgment.

Sanchez v. McLain

867 F. Supp. 2d 813 S.D. West VirginiaSeptember 23, 2011

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 241 (6th Cir.1986) ].” Id.

Ronnie Harris v. United States

422 F.3d 322 Sixth CircuitSeptember 2, 2005

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239 (6th Cir.1986); see also Arevalo v. Woods, 811 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir.1987); Andrews v. Gee, 599 F.Supp. 251, 253 (D.S.C.1984); Armstrong v. Vogel, 424 F.Supp. 445, 447 (D.S.C.1977).

Ortiz v. Pearson

88 F. Supp. 2d 151 S.D. New YorkFebruary 22, 2000

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 241 (6th Cir.1986); see also Engle v. Mecke, 24 F.3d 133, 135 (10th Cir.1994); Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504 , 1513 n. 9 (9th Cir.1991); Birnbaum v.

Cox v. State

686 N.W.2d 209 Supreme Court of IowaSeptember 1, 2004

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 240-41 (6th Cir.1986). Instead, the bar extends to preclude actions arising from the same conduct and events directed towards the claimant. Id.; see Arevalo v. Woods, 811 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir.1987).

Rodriguez v. Handy

873 F.2d 814 Fifth CircuitMay 26, 1989

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Cir., cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 , 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986)), a former federal prisoner sued the United States and two of its employees, asserting negligence and callous indifference to his medical needs.

Pike v. United States

868 F. Supp. 2d 667 M.D. TennesseeApril 11, 2012

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239-42 (6th Cir. 1986); Harris, 422 F.3d at 333-34 (“Courts, including the Sixth Circuit, have consistently read § 2676 to bar a Bivens claim against a government employee ‘arising out of the same actions, transactions, or occurrences’ as

Tedric Leighton Beverly v. John Gluch Mr. Garbow Mary Sauvey, Dr. Mr. Church Mr. McKutchen Carlos Doe Mark Doe George Doe Kay Barath Marshawn Doe

902 F.2d 1568 Sixth CircuitMay 23, 1990 Unpublished

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239-40 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 (1986). Moreover, Dr. Sauvey's declaration clearly shows that she is an officer in the Public Health Service.

Dallas Cty. Mental Health and Mental Retardation v. Bossley

968 S.W.2d 339 Texas Supreme CourtJune 23, 1998

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239 (6th Cir.), cert denied, 479 U.S. 826 , 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986); see Engle v. Mecke, 24 F.3d 133, 135 (10th Cir. 1994).

Thomas v. Oldham

895 S.W.2d 352 Texas Supreme CourtMarch 16, 1995

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 241 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 , 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States, 570 F.2d 1197 , 1201 (4th Cir.1978).

Ronald E. Ting v. United States of America the Federal Bureau of Investigation Drug Enforcement Administration Internal Revenue Service Joe Sheehan

927 F.2d 1504 Ninth CircuitMarch 14, 1991

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 , 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986). 1 In his amended complaint, Ting contends that the defendant-officers gave a false account of the shooting in order to protect Agent Burns.

Kenneth Michael Trentadue, the Estate of by and Through Its Personal Representative Carmen Aguilar and Carmen Aguilar Trentadue, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Kenneth Michael Trentadue and Guardian Ad Litem for Vito Miguel Trentadue Wilma Lou Trentadue Jesse James Trentadue Donna Trentadue Sweeney Lee Frederick Trentadue Jesse Carl Trentadue v. United States of America Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal Bureau of Investigation, Stuart Lee Kenneth Freeman . United States of America, Amicus Curiae. Kenneth Michael Trentadue, the Estate of by and Through Its Personal Representative Carmen Aguilar Carmen Aguilar Trentadue, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Kenneth Michael Trentadue and Guardian Ad Litem for Vito Miguel Trentadue Wilma Lou Trentadue Jesse James Trentadue Donna Trentadue Sweeney Lee Frederick Trentadue Jesse Carl Trentadue v. United States of America and Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal Bureau of Investigation Stuart Lee

397 F.3d 840 Tenth CircuitFebruary 3, 2005

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239-40 (6th Cir.1986); see also Armstrong v.

Mary Kate LEAMAN v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION & DEVELOPMENT DISABILITIES

825 F.2d 946 Sixth CircuitJuly 23, 1987

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986); Arevalo v. Woods, 811 F.2d 487 (9th Cir.1987).

Aaron Schwarder Donna Eubanks Kathleen Schwarder v. United States

974 F.2d 1118 Ninth CircuitSeptember 4, 1992

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 , 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986) is misplaced.

David Jay Sterling v. United States

85 F.3d 1225 Seventh CircuitJune 3, 1996

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Cir.1986). These decisions do not discuss the law of issue preclusion. Now that the question has been presented squarely, we hold that a decision in the employee's favor is not automatically preclusive in the United States' favor.

White v. Annis

864 S.W.2d 127 Tex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)September 24, 1993

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239 (6th Cir.) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 , 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986). That definition appears equally applicable to the Texas statute.

Moore v. United States

102 F. Supp. 3d 35 D.D.C.April 17, 2015

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Cir.1986) (finding that FTCA judgment against the government for negligence of prison doctor and warden barred Bivens action against doctor and warden).

Thomas E. Engle v. Officer Craig Mecke, General Services Administration United States of America

24 F.3d 133 Tenth CircuitMay 13, 1994

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 242 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 , 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986). FTCA claims may not be tried to a jury. 28 U.S.C. § 2402 .

Welch v. Milton

185 S.W.3d 586 Tex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)March 9, 2006

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 , 107 S.Ct.103, 93 L.Ed.2d53 (1986) (defining the similar phrase “by reason of the same subject matter” in the Federal Tort Claims Act)).

Bell v. Love

923 S.W.2d 229 Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)May 23, 1996

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826 , 107 S.Ct. 103 , 93 L.Ed.2d 53 (1986)).

Trentadue v. United States

397 F.3d 840 Tenth CircuitFebruary 3, 2005

Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237, 239-40 (6th Cir.1986); see also Armstrong v. Vogel, 424 F.Supp. 445, 447 (D.S.C.1977) (substance of claim must be considered in deciding whether the claim arises by reason of same subject matter as previous action brought under FTCA).

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list