Legal Opinion

Anderson v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided May 31, 2000No. 99-712 CPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

MOODY R. TIDWELL, III, Senior Judge.

This military pay case is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4). Plaintiff, acting pro se, seeks money damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. For the reasons set forth below, the court ALLOWS defendant’s motion to dismiss and ALLOWS defendant’s motion for sanctions.

BACKGROUND

1. Facts

The following facts are undisputed for the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Burnett v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Tindle v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
  2. May v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
  3. Hornback v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
  4. Nalette v. StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
  5. Garrett v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007

8 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