# United States v. The City of Palm Beach Gardens

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · January 26, 1981 · 635 F.2d 337

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467295

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 26, 1981
- **Citations:** 635 F.2d 337; 60 A.L.R. Fed. 678; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20694
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Anderson
- **Judges:** III, Vance, Hatchett, Anderson
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467295

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the general rule “derives from the common law principle that immunity from limitations periods is an essential prerogative of sovereignty”
- holding that “the United States is not bound by any limitations period unless Congress explicitly directs otherwise”
- finding no limitation period for a suit of recovery of Hill-Burton funds under the Act

## Opinion text

R. LAINER ANDERSON, III, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I believe that the general statute of limitations set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2415 (b) 1 applies to bar the instant suit, and therefore I respectfully dissent. The majority apparently would acknowledge that the six-year statute of limitations contained in section 2415(b) would apply if the City of Palm Beach Gardens had diverted the actual construction funds granted under the Hill-Burton Act before the funds were expended in the construction project. However, the majority holds that there is no diversion of construction funds here, and declines to treat the undisputed diversion of the hospital itself-which was built in part with the grant funds-as the equivalent of a diversion of the funds. I respectfully disagree. I think the language of the statute of limitations-“diversion of money paid under a grant program”-should not be read so narrowly. I would interpret the language to mean diversion of the funds themselves, and diversion of the tangible assets which were bought with the funds.
. 28 U.S.C. § 2415 (b) provides in pertinent part:
Subject to the provisions of section 2416 of this title, and except as otherwise provided by Congress, every action for money damages brought by the United States or an officer or agency thereof which is founded upon a tort shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within three years after the right of action first accrues: Provided, That an action to recover damages resulting from a trespass on lands of the United States; an action to recover damages resulting from fire to such lands; an action to recover for diversion of money paid under a grant program; and an action for conversion of property of the United States may be brought within six years after the right of action accrues .... [Emphasis added]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467295. Public record. Not legal advice.