Legal Opinion
United States v. Bedford Associates
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 18, 1980No. 79 Civ. 1522, 79 Civ. 1482 (HFW)PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HENRY F. WERKER, District Judge.
The United States has moved to dismiss the Bowery’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). The only issue raised by the motion is whether the Bowery’s complaint falls within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
Section 2409a provides in pertinent part: (a) The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, other than a security interest or…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Aldinger v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Kinscherff v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1978
- United States v. Bedford AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Maltais v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1977
- Newport Associates, Inc. v. SolowNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1982
- United States v. Bedford AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- United States v. Bedford AssociatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1982
- United States v. Bedford AssociatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1982
- Albert Ginsberg v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.