Kaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ALLEGRA, Judge:
This is one of several cases in which defendant has moved to dismiss a plaintiffs complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1), asserting that the subsequent filing of a district court action serves to divest this court of subject matter jurisdiction over an earlier-filed ease under 28 U.S.C. § 1500, as interpreted in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1723, 179 L.Ed.2d 723 (2011). For the reasons that follow, this court denies defendant’s motion, as it finds, relying on binding precedent, that section 1500 is inapplicable to the case sub judice.
I
The facts…
2Cases cited139 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Jones v. BockSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Woodford v. NgoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
134 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Starr International Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Halim 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
- United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.