Gaf Corporation v. United States of America. Keene Corporation v. United States of America. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. 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 the regulations contained in 28 C.E.R. §§ 14.1-14.11 “do not govern the jurisdictional requirements of § 2675(a)”
• holding that to meet the presentment requirement, a claimant must file “(1) a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation, and (2) a sum-certain damages claim”
• holding that, to exhaust administrative remedies, an FTCA claimant must “file (1) a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation, and (2) a sum-certain damages claim[]”
• noting that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is preclusive as to the issue of jurisdiction
• explaining that notice requires a “written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation”
• finding that the regulations contained in sections 14.1–14.11 “do not govern the jurisdictional requirements of [section] 2675(a)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).