Legal Opinion
Hartman v. United States
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided July 14, 1981No. Civ. A. 79-2461-5PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
HEMPHILL, Senior District Judge.
The Government’s motion to dismiss this action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act 1 raises essentially one issue: do the facts as alleged by plaintiff Hartman constitute a maritime tort cognizable exclusively within the admiralty jurisdiction 2 of this Court? Because they do, this action is time-barred by reason of the applicable and strict two year statute of limitations, 3 and the motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction must be granted.
While this dispositive question was easily phrased in the paragraph above,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of ClevelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- The Daniel BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- The Propeller Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- The PlymouthSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Victory Carriers, Inc. v. LawSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wilder v. Placid Oil Co.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1985
- Loving v. AlexanderDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1982
- Reynolds v. BradleyDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1986
- Steel Creek Development Corp. v. JamesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982