Little v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
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
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
87 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lippmann v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Hindman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Hindman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Williams v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017