翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Ali Tayebnia
・ Ali Tayla
・ Ali Taylor
・ Ali Taysir
・ Ali Taziev
・ Ali Tennant
・ Ali Thani Jumaa
・ Ali Thomson
・ Ali Tounsi
・ Ali Trade Center
・ Ali Traoré
・ Ali Treki
・ Ali Turan
・ Ali Umar
・ Ali Uras
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
・ Ali Va
・ Ali Valiyev
・ Ali Vegas
・ Ali Velshi
・ Ali Velshi on Target
・ Ali Verdilu
・ Ali Vincent
・ Ali Viola
・ Ali Vâsib
・ Ali wad Hilu
・ Ali Wahaib Shnaiyn
・ Ali Waheed
・ Ali Wakrim
・ Ali Wallace


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons : ウィキペディア英語版
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

''Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons'', , was a United States Supreme Court case, upholding the United States's sovereign immunity against tort claims brought when "any law enforcement officer" loses a person's property.
Abdus-Shahid M. S. Ali, a federal prisoner in Atlanta, Georgia, was transferred to a prison in Inez, Kentucky. His personal property, packed into two duffel bags, was shipped separately. Upon inspecting his property after arrival at the new prison, he said that $177 worth of property was missing from the bags. Ali filed an administrative claim; relief was denied because Ali had signed a receipt form. Ali filed a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
The case turned on the grammar of part of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a 1946 law that waives sovereign immunity in some cases so that the federal government may be sued for certain torts. The FTCA states that the waiver of immunity does not apply to claims arising from the detention of property by "any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer." Ali argued that this text had been intended to encompass only law enforcement officers concerned with customs or excise laws. The Bureau of Prisons argued that the word "any" should be interpreted broadly.
The Supreme Court ruled against Ali in a 5-4 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "The phrase any'' other law enforcement officer' suggests a broad meaning," and compared the phrasing to the phrasing of other laws, with and without the word "any."
In his dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the majority was using "wooden reliance" on the single word ''any'' without considering the rest of the paragraph of the FTCA, and added, "If Congress had intended to give sweeping immunity to all federal law enforcement officials from liability for the detention of property, it would not have dropped this phrase onto the end of the statutory clause so as to appear there as something of an afterthought."


抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.