Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Rutherford v. United States

168 F.2d 70

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1948-04-14
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This cause came on to be heard on the record and on the briefs and arguments of attorneys for the contending parties, and it appearing that, for the reasons stated in his memorandum opinion, 73 F.Supp. 867, the district judge correctly decided that, at the time of the automobile accident upon which the instant action was grounded, the United States Naval Petty Officer was not “acting within the scope of his office or employment” as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act, Act of Aug. 2, 1946, c. 753, Title IV, § 410, 60 Stat. 844, 28 U.S.C.A. § 931, the summary judgment dismissing the case is affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rutherford v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
RUTHERFORD v. UNITED STATES,168 F.2d 70(6th Cir. 1948)
O. Briscoe RUTHERFORD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 10542.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 14, 1948.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee; George C. Taylor, Judge.
Charles H. Davis and Poore, Kramer, Cox Overton, all of Knoxville, Tenn., for appellant.

J.B. Frazier, Jr., of Knoxville, Tenn., for appellee.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on to be heard on the record and on the briefs and arguments of attorneys for the contending parties, and it appearing that, for the reasons stated in his memorandum opinion,73 F. Supp. 867, the district judge correctly decided that, at the time of the automobile accident upon which the instant action was grounded, the United States Naval Petty Officer was not "acting within the scope of his office or employment" as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act, Act of Aug. 2, 1946, c. 753, Title IV, § 410,60 Stat. 844, 28 U.S.C.A. § 931, the summary judgment dismissing the case is affirmed.Page 71