Legal Opinion

Klamath Irrigation District v. the United States 01-591l and 01-5910l Through 01

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided November 22, 2013No. 01-591L and 01-5910L through 01-59125LPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ALLEGRA, Judge:

Section 1500 of Title 28 of the United States Code bars litigation in this court of the same dispute pending in another court. Passed shortly after the Civil War, and long outliving its original purpose, this gatekeeper provision has oft been described as an “anachronism” 1 and a “trap for the unwary.” 2 Yet, in recent years, it has experienced a risorgimento, triggered by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1723, 179 L.Ed.2d 723 (2011), and perpetuated by the United States’ litigating positions. Defendant, at…

2Cases cited198 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Klamath Irrigation District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  2. SER J.C., a Minor v. Hon. James P. Mazzone, Lead Presiding JudgeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Baley v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
  4. Resource Investments, Inc. and Land Recovery, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  5. Shell Oil Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015

10 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