Legal Opinion
Lublin Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided December 3, 2008No. 07-206CPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ALLEGRA, Judge.
“[T]he plain, obvious and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.”
—Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U.S. 364, 370[, 45 S.Ct. 274, 69 L.Ed. 660] (1925).
Waivers of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but “must be unequivocally expressed,” Lane v. Peña, 518 U.S. 187, 192, 116 S.Ct. 2092, 135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996), and must be construed “strictly in favor of the sovereign.” Library of Congress v.…
2Cases cited86 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Lane v. PenaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- United States v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- ViroMed Laboratories, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Griffin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Anchor Tank Lines, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- California Department of Water Resources v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Bullock v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2021
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.