Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
HUBSCH v. UNITED STATES, 1949 — 338 U.S. 440 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
HUBSCH v. UNITED STATES
338 U.S. 44094 L. Ed. 2d 244·Supreme Court of the United States·1949
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
HUBSCH v. UNITED STATES.
No. 379.
Decided December 19, 1949.
Morris Berick was on the application for petitioners.
Solicitor General Perlman was on the application for the United States.
Together with No. 380, Schweitzer v. United States.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
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 the commencement of an action thereon.”
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.