Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brown v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided June 14, 1996No. 95-5062Published

1DissentMayer, Circuit Judge

After today’s opinion, it is difficult to envision a case in which a fiduciary obligation would not lie. Because I do not believe the statutes and regulations at issue establish a fiduciary obligation of the government, I dissent. The Tucker Act gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over broad categories of claims against the United States and constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1994); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 2965, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983) (Mitchell II). However, it “‘does not create any substantive right enforceable…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Mitchell v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981
  5. Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993

3 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