Rafael Medina v. United States of America, No. 00-2156

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that intentional tort claims under § 2680(h) must also clear the discretionary function hurdle under § 2680(a)
• holding that a malicious prosecution claim under the FTCA was barred by the discretionary function exception
• holding that the government is liable under the FTCA “in the same respect as a private person under the law of the place where the act occurred”
• noting that the starting point of analysis is that \federal officials do not possess discretion to violate constitutional rights or federal statutes\
• finding that Plaintiff must first overcome the discretionary function determination before the Court considers the intentional tort exception
• noting that the starting point of the discretionary function exception analysis is that “federal officials do not possess discretion to violate constitutional rights or federal statutes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).