Talk:Feres v. United States

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Added fact Tag

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently reads that:

...a spouse or child may still sue the United States for tort claims (such as medical malpractice)...

However, a recent event and the news surrounding it seems to suggest this is not the case. See [1] for example. The article states:

But because of an old federal law called the Feres Doctrine, Read, his wife, and his family members can't sue the military over what happened to him.

I believe that more research should go into this, ultimately resulting in a citation proving the veracity of any statements related to the ability to sue for tort claims as a result of this case.

--Ultima Designs (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Potential New Case

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For note for the future, in case the Supreme Court hears it: https://www.stripes.com/news/us/widower-takes-on-ban-on-military-injury-claims-to-supreme-court-1.551870 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.85.54 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lack of neutrality and extensive reliance on quotes

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is plainly biased against the Feres doctrine, using such charged language. Fine, that's easy enough to fix. Far more concerning is its extensive reliance on entire passages lifted verbatim from the relevant opinions. Is it standard practice in Wikipedia articles covering Supreme Court cases to copy practically entire opinions instead of analysing them using secondary sources? I find it very hard to believe this could be the case. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic