Legal Opinion

Thompson v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided November 16, 2011No. 11-269 CPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

SWEENEY, Judge.

Before the court are plaintiffs’ request to proceed in forma pawperis and defendant’s motion to dismiss. In this ease, plaintiffs allege that the California Student Ad Commission, known as EdFund, “erroneously charged duplicate billing” in the amount of $11,848.98 and refused to issue a refund to plaintiffs. Defendant moves to dismiss the pro se complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), arguing, among other things, that plaintiffs do not identify a source of substantive law that creates a right to…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Harvey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API