Legal Opinion

Adams v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided October 31, 1983No. 154-83CPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

NETTESHEIM, Judge.

Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint under RUSCC 12(b)(4) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1

FACTS

For the purpose of ruling on a motion under RUSCC 12(b)(4), the facts alleged by plaintiff are regarded as established. See, e.g., Balboa Insurance Co. v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 543, at 544 n. 1 (1983) (SPECTOR, S.J.).

On May 4,1965, plaintiff, a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”), now retired, was injured in an automobile accident, caused by mechanical defect, while on official business. Plaintiff…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Balboa Insurance v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1983
  4. Lindsey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1977

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bettini v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984
  2. Alexander v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984
  3. Goolsby v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
  4. Hulsey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984
  5. Lyons v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API