Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Hubsch Vs. United States

Hubsch vs United States

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Dec-19-1949
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/98298

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
338 U.S. 440
Subject
Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration

Key legal issue
Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hubsch

Respondent

United States

Excerpt

.....such claims, is referred to the district court for consideration and disposition. per curiam. we granted writs of certiorari in these cases, 338 u.s. 814, to review a decision of the court of appeals for the fifth circuit, 174 f.2d 7, affirming judgments of the district court for the southern district of florida in favor of the united states on claims arising under the federal tort claims act. before argument, petitioners and the solicitor general submitted a joint application for approval of proposed settlements of the claims, citing 28 u.s.c. § 2677, which reads as follows: "the attorney general, with the approval of the court, may arbitrate, compromise, or settle any claim cognizable under section 1346(b) of this title [suits under the tort claims act], after commencement of an action thereon. " page 338 u. s. 441 we construe § 2677 as imposing on the district court the authority and responsibility for passing on proposed compromises, notwithstanding the judgments of the court of appeals affirming the judgments of the district court heretofore entered herein. the application and stipulations are therefore referred to the united states district court for the southern district of florida with authority to consider and dispose of the same. it is so ordered. mr. justice douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. * together with no. 380, schweitzer v. united states.

Full Judgment

Hubsch v. United States - 338 U.S. 440 (1949)
U.S. Supreme Court Hubsch v. United States, 338 U.S. 440 (1949)

Hubsch v. United States

No. 379

Decided December 19, 1949 *

338 U.S. 440

ON APPLICATION OF PETITIONERS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

SYLLABUS

The authority and responsibility for passing upon a proposed compromise of 3 claim arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act, after commencement of an action thereon, are imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2677 on the District Court, and such a proposed compromise, submitted here after grant of certiorari to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming judgments of the District Court on such claims, is referred to the District Court for consideration and disposition.

PER CURIAM.

We granted writs of certiorari in these cases, 338 U.S. 814, to review a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 174 F.2d 7, affirming judgments of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida in favor of the United States on claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Before argument, petitioners and the Solicitor General submitted a joint application for approval of proposed settlements of the claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2677, which reads as follows:

"The Attorney General, with the approval of the court, may arbitrate, compromise, or settle any claim cognizable under section 1346(b) of this title [suits under the Tort Claims Act], after commencement of an action thereon. "

Page 338 U. S. 441

We construe § 2677 as imposing on the District Court the authority and responsibility for passing on proposed compromises, notwithstanding the judgments of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgments of the District Court heretofore entered herein. The application and stipulations are therefore referred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida with authority to consider and dispose of the same.

It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

* Together with No. 380, Schweitzer v. United States.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial