Legal Opinion

Little v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided November 23, 2015No. 14-320CPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Motion to Dismiss; Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Failure to State a Claim; Special Pay Authority, 5 U.S.C. § 5305; Maximum Payable Rate Rule, 5 C.F.R. § 531.221; Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596; Mandatory Pay Retention, 5 C.F.R. § 536.301.

OPINION

HORN, J.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiffs Peter Little, Kevin Kirsh, Orlando Luna, Carlos Najera, Allen Schrader, Jon Serdula, Thomas Rohn, Timothy Tobias, Andrew Robinson, and John Garrison filed a complaint, followed by an amended complaint, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The amended complaint asserted that “[t]he USMS [U.S. Marshals…

2Cases cited92 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  5. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lippmann v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
  2. Hindman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  3. Hindman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  4. Williams v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API