Legal Opinion
Pigford v. Perdue
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided May 31, 2018No. Civil Action No. 97–1978 (PLF); Civil Action No. 98–1693 (PLF)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge *3This matter is before the Court on the government's motion to dismiss the petition for monitor review of Maurice McGinnis's claim. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the petition for monitor review.1
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Court has previously recounted the history of this case in its opinion granting Mr. McGinnis's earlier motion to enforce the consent decree and permitting him to pursue his claim under Track B. See Pigford v. Vilsack, 961 F.Supp.2d 82, 83-87 (D.D.C. 2013). Thus, the Court…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Drope v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County JailSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Timothy Pigford v. Sonny PerdueCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2020
- Atain Specialty Insurance Company v. MarquezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
- Ball v. Department of StateDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2021
- Mark v. Islamic Republic of IranDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2022
- Pigford v. VenemanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019