Legal Opinion

Riles v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided June 8, 2010No. 10-12CPublishedCited by 132 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION and ORDER

SMITH, Senior Judge.

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Correct and Motion to Amend Complaint. However, after careful review and consideration, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Dismissal and DENIES Plaintiffs request to transfer this ease to a federal district court.

The Tucker Act grants this Court jurisdiction over all claims against the government, not sounding in tort, that are based on a money-mandating provision within the Constitution or a federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. While a pro se plaintiff is held to a less stringent standard than…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Roland A. Leblanc v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
  3. Jimmie Ann Taylor, Ladell Vasicek, Noma Chriss, Martha Cole, and Sara M. McCarthy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
  4. Cosma-Nelms v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
  5. Taylor v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010

3Cited by132 opinions

  1. Golden v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  2. Hernandez v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
  3. Alston-Bullock v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  4. Sykes v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
  5. Heger v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012

127 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