Wuterich v. Murtha

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the District Court will be required to dismiss the [defamation] case [against the United States] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
• concluding that District of Columbia respondeat superior law applied to alleged defamatory statements made while in the District of Columbia, but that Pennsylvania respondeat superior law applied to tortious conduct that occurred while in Pennsylvania
• noting that the motivation of the employee for engaging in the conduct is relevant to determining scope-of-employment under Pennsylvania law
• concluding that defendant’s alleged attempts to discredit Secretary of Defense were “part and parcel of [his] job as a legislator charged with overseeing 7 military affairs and of his efforts to serve his constituents by advancing legislation to bring home American troops stationed in Iraq”
• deeming decision denying Westfall Act certification pending discovery in defamation case subject to review as collateral order
• instructing district court to dismiss plaintiff’s defamation suit against the United States because it is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).