Legal Opinion

Ishler v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided April 7, 2014No. 1:13-cv-00475PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BUSH, Senior Judge.

Now pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). That motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for a decision by this court. Oral argument was neither requested by the parties nor deemed necessary by the court. Because the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. 2

BACKGROUND 3

In this tax refund suit, plaintiff Domer L. Ishler, a resident of Alabama, seeks a refund of federal income…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  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

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Fremuth v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
  2. Diversified Group Incorporated v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  3. Martti v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  4. Albemarle Corporation & Subsidiaries v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  5. Nesselrode v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016

14 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