Legal Opinion
Barlow & Haun, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided June 1, 2009No. 08-847 LPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
GEORGE W. MILLER, Judge.
Defendant has moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety as barred by the statute of limitations, or in the alternative, to dismiss plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment taking claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), as precluded by the existence of a contract between the parties. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is DENIED.
I. Background
The dispute in this case centers around a conflict between oil and gas producers and trona miners who hold rights to those…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Smothers v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2014
- Barlow & Haun, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Copar Pumice Company, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Sunapee Difference, LLC v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2013
- Century Exploration New Orleans, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.