Legal Opinion
Thigpen v. United States
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided September 12, 1985No. Civ. A. 2:85-0459-1, 2:85-0460-1PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED ORDER
HAWKINS, District Judge.
These sexual abuse cases arise under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2671. The defendant moves to dismiss both cases for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 It argues, inter alia, that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the intentional tort exception to the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), and that the government’s employee, Edmundo Rodriguez, was acting outside of the scope of his employment when he sexually assaulted the girls. This court agrees with the defendant. For reasons to be stated, it is the opinion of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Feres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- United States v. ShearerSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Gary L. Adams v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. SpelarSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Sandra B. Andrews and Kenneth M. Andrews v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Thigpen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
- Wise v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1998
- Martinez v. FennDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1988
- Doe 1 v. Varsity Brands LLCDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2023
- Doe 3 v. Varsity Brands LLCDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2023
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.