Legal Opinion

Ruff v. Runyon

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided August 3, 1999No. 1:97-cv-02224PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

GWIN, District Judge.

This action arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. On August 24, 1998, Defendant United States of America filed its second motion to dismiss this action [Doc. 53]. 1 In its motion, the defendant argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Defendant United States contends the claims are preempted by the Federal Employees Compensation Act (“FECA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101 et seq.

While this motion…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Abreu-Guzman v. FordDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1999
  2. Bakos v. City of Olmsted FallsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  3. Stennis v. ArmstrongDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API