Legal Opinion
Foreman v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided May 29, 1992No. 15-89TPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WEINSTEIN, Judge.
Before the court is plaintiffs’ response to the court’s sua sponte order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because the statutory provision, as well as the regulations, upon which plaintiffs’ claim for refund is based—§ 11(c)(1) of Pub.L. No. 87-834 (1962) (1962 Act) and Treas.Reg. § 1.911-1(c), 28 Fed.Reg. 7247 (1963)—were not in effect during 1982, the year for which they claim a refund.1
While a decision on the merits of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment also would result in dismissal of plaintiff’s claim,2 the…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De GuineeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- American Home Assur. v. PLAZA MATERIALSSupreme Court of Florida · 2005
- GULFSTREAM PARK RACING v. Tampa Bay DownsSupreme Court of Florida · 2006
- Snap-On Tools, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992
- Reuel J. Foreman and Evelyn M. Foreman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Reuel J. Foreman and Evelyn M. Foreman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995