Want to make your own predictions?

  Join Now!

  • Outcome Prediction Evolution Chart
  • Justice Predictions Evolution Table

Case Profile

Docket Number17-1201
Full NameGary Thacker, et ux. v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Short NameThacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority
PetitionerGary Thacker, et ux.
RespondentTennessee Valley Authority
Date Argued (Reargued)Jan. 14, 2019
Date Decided

Question Presented

1. This Court tests the immunity of governmental "sue and be sued" entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority) under Fed. Housing Amin. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1940). The Court has declined to borrow rules from the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to narrow that immunity. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). Did the Eleventh Circuit err by using an FTCA- derived "discretionary-function exception," rather than Burr, to immunize the TVA from the plaintiffs' claims? 2. Did the Eleventh Circuit, in any case, correctly apply the discretionary-function test? Did that court correctly hold that safely raising a downed power line from the Tennessee River constitutes the sort of "policy"-laden discretionary work that this exception was designed to immunize from suit? GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.

Case Prediction Summary

- correct prediction- wrong prediction
Total Prediction Count79
Votes for Justice Affirm5
Votes to Justice Reverse74
% Justice (A)ffirm/(R)everse
94 (R)
Votes for Outcome Affirm1
Votes for Outcome Reverse8
% Outcome (A)ffirm/(R)everse
89 (R)
Predicted Outcome

User Predictions Summary

Recent Prediction Activity last 10 predictions

« Back to the case list