Treamenda Spivey Richard Spivey v. United States of America, and Department of the Navy Michael E. Woodard

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[djespite some ambiguous language,” the district court correctly applied an objective foreseeability standard
• holding that the district court properly allowed the plaintiff may amend her damages claim under Section 2675(b
• concluding motion to strike affidavits was timely under Rule 103(a)(1)(A) when it was filed only nine days after they were offered into evidence
• finding that even though the possible side effects of a drug the plaintiff was taking were known at the time of her administrative claim, the fact that she did not exhibit those side effects until after the claim was filed constituted “newly discovered evidence”
• “it is elementary that counsel may not participate both as an advocate and as a witness, absent special circumstances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).