Emma Reynolds v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it was proper to dismiss an amended complaint that was filed “on a date on which the court lacked jurisdiction” and “related back to a date on which the court also lacked jurisdiction”
• holding that tardy amendment naming United States as FTCA defendant could not confer jurisdiction on court even if amendment related back to time suit was instituted because suit had been filed prior to administrative exhaustion
• holding that District Court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction amended complaint that could only relate back to pleading filed on a date upon which the District Court would have lacked jurisdiction over the issues asserted
• finding that a district court was required to dismiss a complaint asserting claims under the FTCA that was filed before the federal agency had sent Plaintiff written notice of denial of administrative claim
• finding that a district court was required to dismiss a complaint asserting claims under the FTCA that was filed before the federal agency had sent the Plaintiff written notice of denial of administrative claim
• finding that untimely FTCA complaint could not relate back to an earlier complaint because plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies at the time of the earlier complaint and, thus, trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time of filing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).