Legal Opinion

Hoch v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided March 27, 1995No. 93-553CPublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

MILLER, Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1). Defendant asked for summary judgment in the alternative, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The issue is whether 28 U.S.C. § 524(c) (1988 & Supp. V 1993), mandates the payment of awards to informants, thereby allowing the court to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs action for compensation. Argument is deemed unnecessary.

FACTS

The following facts, undisputed except where noted, replicate some of the background set forth in an earlier order…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  4. Land v. DollarSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  5. Eastport Steamship Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Hopi Tribe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
  2. Contreras v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
  3. Doe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000
  4. Doe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
  5. Khairallah v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999

13 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