Legal Opinion

Resource Investments, Inc. and Land Recovery, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided February 5, 2014No. 98-419LPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION and ORDER

Block, Judge.

Before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and 28 U.S.C. § 1500. This motion is among a myriad 1 brought by defendant based on United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1723, 179 L.Ed.2d 723 (2011), which clarified the limitations of this court’s jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1500. Although the Tucker Act confers jurisdiction upon this court to hear certain types of monetary claims against the United States, §…

2Cases cited47 opinions

  1. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Federal Deposit Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  4. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Ex Parte McCardleSupreme Court of the United States · 1869

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Parker v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  2. Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  3. Ammon v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2019
  4. Bailey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2021
  5. Rohland v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018

2 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