Legal Opinion

Bell v. United States

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided March 17, 2014No. Case No. 2:11-CV-00884PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION & ORDER

ALGENON L. MARBLEY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 25). The United States argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), because the Complaint impermissibly challenges discretionary conduct, and fails to state a claim under Ohio law. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff Patrick Bell opposes, on the grounds that Defendant’s employee never exercised any discretion, and that Plaintiff has succeeded at stating an Ohio-law claim…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bailey v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2015
  2. Judith Mendoza v. Costco Wholesale CorporationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API