string(0) ""
array(4) {
["txt"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_datas"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_thumbnail"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_media"]=>
string(0) ""
}
Gonzalez v. United States Air Force
| Subtitle | should courts consider rape to be incident to military service? |
| Magazine Title | American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law |
| Volume | 13 |
| Magazine Year | 2005 |
| Magazine Number | 3 |
| Pages | p.635-668 |
| Note | lit. |
| Language | English/Engels |
| Description | This analysis of the case Gonzalez v. United States Air Force contains in part I a brief background of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the Ferez Doctrine, which states that almost every injury that occurs to a service member arises directly out of his of her military service, the plaintiff's claim in the Gonzalez case and the decision of the Tenth Circuit. Part 2 describes how civilian courts have expanded the meanig behind the Feres doctrine and argues that Feres should not have barred the plaintiff's claim in Gonzalez. Part 3 discusses why the discretionary function and intentional tort exceptions to the FTCA should not bar the plaintiff's claim and explains why the Ninth Circuit's negligent hiring analysis would have been appropriate in Gonzalez. This comment concludes that the Tenth Circuit could have decided Gonzalez differently and allowed the plaintiff the opportunity to argue the merits of her case had the court not dismissed the case on a jurisdictional technicality. |
| External Link | https://wcl.american.edu/journal/genderlaw/13/13-3.cfm |
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/11653/art230249
