U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1947

Burns v. Spiller

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 24, 1947

161 F.2d 377; 82 U.S. App. D.C. 91; 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2777 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Walter W. Burns, appellant, pro se. Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Daniel B. Maher, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Edward M. Cur-ran, of Washington, D. C., United States Attorney at the time the record was filed, also entered an appearance for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Chung Wing Ping v. Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Slaff v. Slaff (District Court, S.D. New York 1957)
Riley v. Titus (D.C. Cir. 1951)
Crompton Corp. v. Clariant Corp. (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 2002)
Guidry v. United States Tobacco Co. (5th Cir. 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief * * The District Court rightly dismissed appellant’s complaint, since it contained neither a short and plain statement nor any statement which showed that he was entitled to relief. The complaint undertakes to describe several episodes. Though it characterizes appellees’ alleged conduct as wrongful, unlawful, and malicious, it does not sufficiently disclose the conduct to enable a court to judge whether or not it was tortious.

The complaint shows that appellant and appellees were army officers. It may be that an official privilege covers the whole case, but we have no occasion to decide that broad question.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.