Legal Opinion
Slattery v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided October 11, 2006No. 93-280CPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SMITH, Senior Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Intervenors’ Second Amended Complaint pursuant to United States Court of Federal Claims Rule (“RCFC”) 12(b)(1) and RCFC 12(b)(6) in this Winstar1 related case. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and after oral argument, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and, therefore, need not address Defendant’s alternative argument under RCFC 12(b)(6).
I. BACKGROUND2 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Meritor Savings Bank (“Meritor”) was organized in 1816 under Pennsylvania law…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Home Savings of America, Fsb v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Patton v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Ambase Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Slattery v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Slattery v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Ambase Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- Anchor Savings Bank, FSB v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- Slattery v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.