Legal Opinion

McBryde v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided August 24, 2001No. 01-144CPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION & ORDER

HODGES, Judge.

This is a suit for reimbursement of litigation expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 463 (1994). Plaintiff, a United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas, seeks recovery of attorneys’ expenses and fees he incurred in pursuing a mandamus action to challenge the transfer of two cases from his docket. Although we conclude that Section 463 is a money-mandating statute sufficient for invoking Tucker Act jurisdiction, we find that Judge McBryde is not entitled to relief because his action did not satisfy the statutory criteria permitting…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Eastport Steamship Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
  4. United States v. WillSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Evans v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. John McBryde v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
  2. John McBryde v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API