Charles Barnett v. Okeechobee Hospital

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that notice of the plaintiff's tort claim against the United States \was mailed-in compliance with the pertinent federal regulations-to an administrative office ... and not to a person \
• explaining that the presumption of receipt is “not a conclusive presumption of law, but a mere inference of fact, founded on the probability that the officers of the government will do their duty and the usual course of business” (citation omitted)
• analyzing receipt in the context of mailing a document that was properly addressed, stamped, and mailed, which creates a rebuttal presumption of receipt
• stating factual findings concerning subject matter jurisdiction made by the district court are overturned only if clearly erroneous
• explaining that an office employee’s mere assertion that the office never received a completed form in the mail is insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt without, for example, the employee setting forth their personal knowledge of office procedures for processing received mail
• allowing FTCA plaintiffs to raise a rebuttable presumption of receipt upon showing that “(1) the document was properly addressed; (2) the document was stamped; and (3) the document was mailed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).