Supreme Court· 7/2/1986

United States v. James

Citations

478 U.S. 597
106 S. Ct. 3116
92 L. Ed. 2d 483
1986 U.S. LEXIS 136
54 U.S.L.W. 5030

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 provision o f the Flood Control Act creating immunity for “damage” was not ambiguous even though that term m ight arguably refer only to dam age to property rather than, as ordinarily understood, to dam age to both persons and property
stating that “the sweeping language of § 702c was no drafting inadvertence. Congress clearly sought to ensure beyond doubt that sovereign immunity would protect the Government from ‘any' liability associated with flood control.” (internal citation omitted)
starting point in statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself
starting point in statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself
\[W]e assume that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.\
\[W]e assume that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blackmun, Brennan, Burger, Powell, Stevens, White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

285 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. James

190 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.