Legal Opinion

Paul v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided August 26, 1982No. 566-77; No. 593-77PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDavis, Judge

Plaintiffs are attorneys who say that they entered into valid contracts with Alaska Native groups and entities to perform legal services (in connection with the Natives’ land claims in Alaska), but did not receive the payment to which they claim to be entitled under those fee-arrangements because the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. (the Settlement Act), severely restricted such attorneys’ compensation. Their claim here is that this part of the Act amounted to a taking of their property (the pre-existing right to fees) for which they should receive just…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Yakus v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Regional Rail Reorganization Act CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Dames & Moore v. ReganSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In Re Consolidated United States Atmospheric Testing LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1985
  2. Paul v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
  3. Paul v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
  4. Babcock Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1982
  5. Zaid v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API