Legal Opinion
Minidoka Irrigation District v. Department of Interior
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 14, 2005No. 03-35697PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOULD, Circuit Judge.
The Minidoka Irrigation ’ District (“MID”) sued the federal government alleging, inter alia, that the government had breached its contract to credit MID with profits derived from the operation of the Minidoka Project power plant. On remand from our Court in Minidoka Irrigation District v. DOI, 154 F.3d 924 (9th Cir.1998) (“Minidoka I ”), the district court held a bench trial and returned judgment in favor of the government, ruling that MID’s contract claim is barred by the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). MID appeals the district court’s judgment…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Rex T. KEARNEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Franconia Associates v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- United States v. Richard Wesley ElliottCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Paul S. Rubera, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Paul S. RuberaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- EastBanc, Inc. v. Georgetown Park Associates II, L.P.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- In Re Chemtura Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Minidoka Irrigation District v. Department Of InteriorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005