Shansky v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the NPS’s decision as to whether to post warning signs at the exit of a historical building was discretionary
• holding that Park Service Operating Manual was too general because it did not “specifically prescribe that any particular safety measure be employed at any particular place or in any particular facility”
• stating that the discretionary function exception should apply only if the official who made a challenged decision had the authority to make that decision
• holding that a National Park Service guideline providing that “the saving of human life will take precedence over all other management actions” did not prescribe a specific course of action for the installation of handrails and warning signs
• explaining that the law presumes that the exercise of discretion implicates policy and that it is the plaintiffs burden to demonstrate that the decision is not susceptible to policy-related judgments
• explaining that this second prong focuses on “whether some plausible policy justification could have undergirded the challenged conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).