King

Court of Claims

King

618 F.2d 120, 219 Ct. Cl. 662, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 69

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMarch 2, 1979

DocketNo. 521-78

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 618 F.2d 120 (King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

King, 618 F.2d 120, 219 Ct. Cl. 662, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 69 (cc 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs instant pro se action is challenged by defendant’s motion to dismiss. After consideration of the parties’ submissions, but without oral argument, we grant defendant’s motion and dismiss the petition.

Plaintiffs petition is deficient in the particulars specified by Rule 35(a), (c) and (d) of the Court of Claims for its lack of clarity. Plaintiff complains about a matter involving his (presumably) automobile, a Pontiac Catalina, and alludes to possible misrepresentation or fraud in its transfer to him. Plaintiff does not state how the United States might be responsible for any loss plaintiff may have suffered thereby. General Motors Corporation cannot be sued in this court. This court has no jurisdiction in tort, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1976); Somali Development Bank v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 741, 508 F. 2d 817 (1974).

[663]*663it is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion is granted and plaintiffs petition is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiffs instant pro se action is challenged by defendant’s motion to dismiss. After consideration of the parties’ submissions, but without oral argument, we grant defendant’s motion and dismiss the petition.

Plaintiffs petition is deficient in the particulars specified by Rule 35(a), (c) and (d) of the Court of Claims for its lack of clarity. Plaintiff complains about a matter involving his (presumably) automobile, a Pontiac Catalina, and alludes to possible misrepresentation or fraud in its transfer to him. Plaintiff does not state how the United States might be responsible for any loss plaintiff may have suffered thereby. General Motors Corporation cannot be sued in this court. This court has no jurisdiction in tort, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1976); Somali Development Bank v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 741, 508 F. 2d 817 (1974).

[663]*663it is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion is granted and plaintiffs petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

618 F.2d 120, 219 Ct. Cl. 662, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-cc-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack