Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Shearer, Individually And As Administratrix For The Estate Of Shearer

• 1984 • 473 U.S. 52 • Burger Court
In the United States v. Shearer case of 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that a military serviceman's mother could not sue the U.S. government for her son's off-duty murder by another serviceman. The victim’s mother argued that the Army was negligent in its supervision of Andrew Heard, who had previously been convicted of manslaughter and showed signs of violent behavior but was still allowed to serve overseas where he murdered Private Vernon Shearer while off duty. The court held that under Feres...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1984
Docket: 84-194
473 U.S. 52
105 S. Ct. 3039
87 L. Ed. 2d 38
1985 U.S. LEXIS 82
Argued: Feb 25, 1985

United States v. Shearer, Individually And As Administratrix For The Estate Of Shearer

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Shearer case of 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that a military serviceman's mother could not sue the U.S. government for her son's off-duty murder by another serviceman. The victim’s mother argued that the Army was negligent in its supervision of Andrew Heard, who had previously been convicted of manslaughter and showed signs of violent behavior but was still allowed to serve overseas where he murdered Private Vernon Shearer while off duty. The court held that under Feres Doctrine - which prevents suits against the federal government by members of armed forces for injuries arising out from or during their service - Mrs. Shearer’s claim was barred as it essentially questioned military discipline and decision-making, matters constitutionally vested with Congress and Executive Branch.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Shearer, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold immunity of military personnel from lawsuits arising out of their official duties. He argued that this case was not about a soldier performing his duty but rather involved an off-duty serviceman committing murder in civilian life. He believed that such actions were outside the scope of employment and thus should be subject to civil liability under state law. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on Feres Doctrine - which grants immunity to military personnel from tort claims for injuries related to service - stating it had been misapplied and extended beyond its original intent. In conclusion, Justice Brennan contended that by denying Mrs.Shearer her day in court against her son's murderer, they denied justice itself.

Opinion written by Justice WEBurger
Decided: Jun 27, 1985
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms