Brown v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
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
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Mitchell v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981
- Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.