Gloeckner v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
YOCK, Judge.
This inverse condemnation action comes before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) and (4) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its motion to dismiss, the defendant claims that the plaintiffs, as defendants in an eminent domain proceeding filed by the Government in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, have interposed the same claim in another “suit or process against the United States”; thereby depriving this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over this inverse condemnation action. 28 U.S.C. §…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Keene Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Loveladies Harbor, Inc. And Loveladies Harbor, Unit D, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Johns-Manville Corporation and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Unr Industries, Inc., Unarco Industries, Inc., and Eagle Picher Industries, Inc. v. The United States, Keene Corporation v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Frantz Equipment Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1951
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stephenson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1994
- Brandt v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- Stephenson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997