Legal Opinion
Bailey v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided January 21, 2000No. 96-666PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HORN, Judge.
FACTS
This matter comes before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, dismissal pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant filed an earlier motion to dismiss, which was denied by the court. See Bailey v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 449 (1998). Defendant raises the issue of the jurisdictional bar of 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (1994) (“Pendency of claims in other courts”),…
2Cases cited94 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bailey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- Holloway v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- Southern California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- Lublin Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- City of Burbank, California v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.