Legal Opinion

Johnson v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided December 20, 2007No. 07-672 CPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

SWEENEY, Judge.

Before the court is plaintiffs pro se Complaint (“Complaint” or “Compl.”), defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (“Def.’s Mot.”) under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Response” or “Pl.’s Resp.”) and two affidavits, a “Negative Averment” (“Pl.’s Aff. A”) and “Affidavit of Truth” (“Pl.’s Aff. B”), accompanying plaintiffs Response, and Defendant’s Reply (“Def.’s Reply”). Plaintiff,' a federal inmate, seeks relief for the alleged breach of an…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Schweitzer v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
  2. Pleasant-Bey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  3. Southern Nuclear Operating Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  4. Nwogu v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
  5. Gibson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015

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

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

Powered by the Exa API