Rutherford v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Rutherford v. United States

168 F.2d 70, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2016

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided April 14, 1948·No. No. 10542·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Rutherford v. United States, 168 F.2d 70, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2016 (6th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

168 F.2d 70 (Rutherford v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related