Legal Opinion
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided December 2, 2011No. 06-924 LPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MEROW, Senior Judge.
By statute this court lacks jurisdiction over any suit “for or in respect to” claims that are pending in another court. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss contends that plaintiffs previously-filed district court complaint shares substantially the same operative facts as this, the second-filed action. For the following reasons, because plaintiffs district court litigation was pending at the time the instant matter was filed, and was “for or in respect to the same claim,” applying 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006) as recently clarified by United States v. Tohono O’Odham…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Klamath Irrigation District v. the United States 01-591l and 01-5910l Through 01United States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- U.S. Home Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Confidential Informant 59-05071 v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Kingman Reef Atoll Investments L.L.C. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.