Shore v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the Court
*827ORDER
REGINALD W. GIBSON, Judge.
This tax refund case is before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend its answer to defendant’s counterclaim pursuant to RUSCC 15(a). Defendant contends that the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ third affirmative defense, because of the doctrine of substantial variance. For the reasons expressed below, we find that the defendant’s objections to plaintiffs’ motion are without merit, and accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a tax refund suit against the government for taxes assessed…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Union Pacific Railroad Company v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1968
- Ottawa Silica Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Black v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
- Effingham County Board of Education v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cencast Services, L.P. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- El Paso Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014