Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:


Will v. Hallock

Docket No.: 04-1332
Certiorari Granted: 6/6/2005
Argued: November 28, 2005
Decided: January 18, 2006


Judicial Power

PartyNames: Richard Will, et al. v. Susan Hallock, et al.
Petitioner: Richard Will, et al.
Respondent: Susan Hallock, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Richard Will, et al.
Susan Hallock, et al.
546 U.S. 345 (2006)

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)'s judgment bar, 28 U.S.C. 2676, provides that "[t]he judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of this title," i.e., the statutory provision that grants subject matter jurisdiction to federal district courts over FTC A cases, "shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim."

Question Presented:

The question presented is: Whether a final judgment in an action brought under Section 1346(b) dismissing the claim on the ground that relief is precluded by one of the FTCA's exceptions to liability, 28 U .S.C. 2680, bars a subsequent action by the claimant against the federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA claim.


1) If a claim under the FTCA is dismissed on the grounds that it is covered by one of the Act's exceptions to the waiver of sovereign immunity, is the dismissal a final judgment that bars a subsequent suit against the individual federal employees who were involved? 2) Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to hear an appeal of the District Court's order?


IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: "Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal of the District Court's order denying a motion to dismiss under the FTCA's judgment bar, 28 U.S.C. 2676?"

Holding: vacated and remanded
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Read WILL V. HALLOCK opinion (PDF)

Read opinion

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/supremec/public_html/supremecourtobserver.com/code/sofunctionsndb.php on line 1145

Other Resources for Will v. Hallock: