This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Supreme Court cases B‑class Low‑importance 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 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law B‑class Low‑importance 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]

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]