Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/1040

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

502ind$$bv 09-11-95 14:43:04 PGT•INDBV (Bound Volume)

INDEX

1307

EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES. See Labor, 2. EMPLOYMENT. See Veterans’ Reemployment Rights Act. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT. Attorney’s fees—Administrative deportation proceedings.—Administrative deportation proceedings are not adversary adjudications for which EAJA has waived sovereign immunity and authorized award of attorney’s fees and costs. Ardestani v. INS, p. 129. EVIDENCE. See Constitutional Law, I; III, 1. EXCISE TAXES. See Taxes. EXEMPTION 6. See Freedom of Information Act. EXTRAORDINARY WRITS. See Supreme Court, 5. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS. See Financial Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ NEGLIGENCE. See Federal Tort Claims Act, 2. FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT. Causes of action—State-owned railroad.—FELA creates a cause of action against a state-owned railroad, enforceable in state court. Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Comm’n, p. 197. FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. See Jurisdiction. FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT. 1. Immunity from suit—Secret Service agents.—Agents who arrested respondent for making threats against President were entitled to qualified immunity from suit under Act for allegedly arresting respondent without probable cause or a warrant. Hunter v. Bryant, p. 224. 2. Punitive damages—Federal employees’ negligence.—Title 28 U. S. C. § 2674—under which United States is liable on tort claims to same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, “but shall not be liable . . . for punitive damages” (emphasis added)—bars recovery only of what are legally considered “punitive damages” under traditional commonlaw principles, i. e., those whose recoverability depends upon proof that defendant has engaged in intentional or egregious misconduct and whose purpose is to punish; thus, FTCA did not bar petitioner from recovering damages for her husband’s future medical expenses and his loss of enjoyment of life, which were based on a simple negligence theory. Molzof v. United States, p. 301. FIFTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law, III, 2.