618 F.2d 263 - Prater v. United States — 618 F.2d 263

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2008

10 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Thomas R. Burnside, Jr., Augusta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

¶2William T. Moore, Jr., U. S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., Edmund A. Booth, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., Anne S. Almy, James W. Moorman, Dept, of Justice, Appellate Sect., Land & Natural Resources Div., Attys., Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.

¶3ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

¶4(Opinion Feb. 20, 1980, 5 Cir., 1980, 612 F.2d 157)

¶5Before GODBOLD, REAVLEY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7We granted rehearing to dispose of the government’s concern that our original opinion, Prater v. United States, 612 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1980), expands the scope of the sovereign immunity · Case Law">waiver of sovereign immunity for “quiet title” suits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2409a (1976) to actions seeking reformation of a deed. We did not characterize Prater’s suit as one in the nature of an action to reform a deed; that label was one affixed by the government. Id. at 159. The opinion clearly indicates that Prater asserted equitable title to the realty, under Georgia trust law, by virtue of Allen’s promise of reconveyance. Prater’s summary' judgment proof (the depositions of Fred Prater and Allen as well as Allen’s affidavit) was sufficient to establish the promise to reconvey, and thus raise a claim of equitable title for jurisdictional purposes. See Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n.4, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 1010 n.4, 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947); C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1350 (1969). Because Prater claimed a right, title or interest in the property, section 2409a served as a waiver of sovereign immunity and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under 28 U.S.C. • § 1346(f) (1976).