Legal Opinion
Hoch v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided April 28, 1994No. 93-553CPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NETTESHEIM, Judge.
This ease is before the court on defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and to dismiss the remainder of plaintiffs complaint based on lack of jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1). The issue to be decided is whether, after plaintiff- had been paid for his cooperation by government agents in previous operations, an agent’s promise to pay plaintiff for similar cooperation created a contract binding on the Government. Argument is deemed unnecessary.
FACTS
The following facts are undisputed, unless otherwise indicated. Jerry Lee Hoch (“plaintiff’) periodically had…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik Ag v. Murata MacHinery Ltd., and Murata of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- The United States v. Amdahl CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Roy v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
- Vanalco, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000
- Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
- Cruz-Pagan v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
- Garza v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1995
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.