Legal Opinion

Bevevino v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided May 21, 2009No. 08-677 CPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*400OPINION AND ORDER

BUSH, Judge.

Before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss, relying on Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Defendant’s motion has been fully briefed, and oral argument was neither requested by the parties nor deemed necessary by the court. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiffs in this action “are current and former employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution at McKean, Pennsylvania.” Compl. ¶ 1. These federal…

2Cases cited58 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  5. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
  2. Bevevino v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  3. King v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  4. Angel v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2023
  5. DAVIS v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2025

1 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