Talk:Feres v. United States

Added fact Tag
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 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)

Potential New Case
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)

Lack of neutrality and extensive reliance on quotes
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)