Case Citator › David Holt, as Personal Representative of the Estates of James W. Holt and Joan Holt, Deceased v. United States

David Holt, as Personal Representative of the Estates of James W. Holt and Joan Holt, Deceased v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
46 F.3d 1000
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
121 of 121
Citing cases (total)
121
Treatment dates
2001–2021
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. David Holt, as Personal Representative of the Estates of James W. Holt and Joan Holt, Deceased v. United States has been abrogated. All 121 flagged citations have been processed; 2 confirmed adverse treatments are listed below.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

121 later cases cite David Holt, as Personal Representative of the Estates of James W. Holt and Joan Holt, Deceased v. United States; 121 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on David Holt, as Personal Representative of the Estates of James W. Holt and Joan Holt, Deceased v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court displaced Holt's Flood Control Act test, which asked whether a nexus existed between flood-control activity and the injury, with an inquiry into the character and release purpose of the waters that caused the damage.

    Central Green Co. v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    For present purposes, we merely hold that it was error to grant the Government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and that it is the text of § 702c, as informed by our holding in James, rather than the broad dictum in that opinion, that governs the scope of the United States’ immunity from liability for damage caused “by floods or flood waters.” Accordingly, in determining whether § 702c immunity attaches, courts should consider the character of the waters that cause the relevant damage rather than the relation between that damage and a flood control project.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Supreme Court recognized an exception to Holt's ordinary conversion rule when an FTCA element is both merits-based and jurisdictional, permitting dismissal under either Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), or both.

    Brownback v. King · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In cases such as this one where a plaintiff fails to plausibly allege an element that is both a merit element of a claim and a jurisdictional element, the district court may dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6). Or both.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads David Holt, as Personal Representative of the Estates of James W. Holt and Joan Holt, Deceased v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace