4 General Statutory Waivers Of Sovereign Immunity

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "4 General Statutory Waivers Of Sovereign Immunity"

Transcription

1 4 General Statutory Waivers Of Sovereign Immunity 4.01 CATEGORIZATION OF STATUTORY WAIVERS OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: SPECIFIC AND GENERAL As discussed at the beginning of Chapter 3, 1 this treatise divides statutory waivers of sovereign immunity into two broad categories: specific waivers (Chapter 3) and general waivers (Chapter 4). Although this division is somewhat artificial, it has a principled basis and serves the purpose of organizing the multitude of statutes into understandable categories (at least for the author of this treatise). As used in this treatise, Specific Statutory Waivers of Sovereign Immunity (the focus of the previous chapter) denotes those statutes that waive the government s immunity for particular types of substantive claims, defined by the type of cause of action cognizable under the particular statute. General Statutory Waivers of Sovereign Immunity (the focus of this present chapter) includes those statutes that waive governmental immunity for general claims seeking a particular type of relief. In other words, the statutes addressed in this chapter waive immunity based primarily upon the form of relief allowed rather than the substantive nature of the claim. Two major statutes form the framework for this chapter, namely (1) the Tucker Act 2 which authorizes non-tort money claims against the United States; and (2) the Administrative Procedure Act 3 which authorizes claims for specific relief against the federal government.the century-old Tucker Act has been superseded in recent decades for certain types of claims that for- 1 See supra U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), See infra 4.02 to U.S.C See infra

2 226 Litigation With The Federal Government 4.02 merly fell within its purview, by such subsequent enactments as the Contract Disputes Act 4 and the Civil Service Reform Act. 5 Nonetheless, the discussion of contract claims and civilian employment claims in this treatise proceeds under the Tucker Act topic heading for practical organizational reasons and because the preexisting Tucker Act structure influenced Congress in developing the current statutory form for resolution of these claims. There are, of course, no true general waivers, that is, no statute that completely eliminates all incidents of sovereign immunity, even in a particular field of law or for a type of relief. Both the Tucker Act and the Administrative Procedure Act contain important limitations that will be highlighted in this chapter.at the close of this chapter, we examine the intersection of these two statutes, with attendant problems (or opportunities, depending on one s perspective) for forum-shopping between separatelycreated courts. PART A: THE TUCKER ACT AND RELATED NON-TORT MONEY CLAIMS TRIAL COURT JURISDICTION THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS AND THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4.02(a) The United States Court Of Federal Claims 4.02(a)(1) The Origins Of The Court Of Claims What today is the Court of Federal Claims shared its birth with that of the first significant grant of permission by the sovereign United States to its citizens to seek relief against it in the courts. 7 The United States Court of Claims was created by Congress in 1855 and given authority to hear claims 4 Contract Disputes Act of 1978, Pub. L. No , 92 Stat (codified at 41 U.S.C ). See infra 4.08(b). 5 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No , 92 Stat (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.). See infra 4.05(b). 6 Much of the material in Part A of this chapter originally appeared in Gregory C. Sisk, The Tapestry Unravels: Statutory Waivers of Sovereign Immunity and Money Claims Against the United States, 71 GEO.WASH.L.REV. 602 (2003). 7 Richard H. Seamon, Separation of Powers and the Separate Treatment of Contract Claims Against the Federal Government for Specific Performance, 43 VILL. L. REV. 155, (1998).

3 4.02(a)(1) General Sovereign Immunity Waivers 227 against the United States founded upon federal statutes, regulations, and contracts. 8 Prior to 1855, individuals with contract or other monetary claims against the federal government had been barred by sovereign immunity from seeking redress in court, and thus were left to petition Congress to enact legislation in the form of private bills appropriating funds to pay those claims. As originally conceived, the Court of Claims had authority only to make recommendations to Congress to pay claims, thereby serving as an advisor to Congress regarding the merits of such claims. 9 President Lincoln urged Congress to give the power of making judgments final to the Court of Claims, arguing that [i]t is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of its citizens, as it is to administer the same between private individuals. 10 As President Lincoln requested, and under the deluge of Civil War claims, 11 Congress acted in 1863 to grant the Court of Claims power to make binding and final judgments with appellate review by the Supreme Court. 12 From an historical and a practical perspective, it is not at all surprising that the very first congressional waiver of the United States immunity from legal action and liability was focused primarily upon disputes involving government contractors. Dean Harold J. Krent explains that [t]he [pre-civil War waiver of immunity from contract suit] was viewed as indispensable to the efficient operation of government, for without it, qualified private contractors might not undertake government projects and the government could not obtain the goods and services it needed at affordable prices. 13 Professor Gillian Hadfield writes that the waiver of sovereign immunity in contract cases served not only practical ends but promoted democratic theory: The ability of the sovereign to bind itself in contract has been an important step in the evolution of the modern democratic state. 8 Act of February 24, 1855, ch. 122, 10 Stat Michael F. Noone, Jr. & Urban A. Lester, Defining Tucker Act Jurisdiction After Bowen v. Massachusetts, 40 CATH. U. L. REV. 571, 575 (1991); William M. Wiecek, The Origin of the United States Court of Claims, 20 ADMIN.L.REV. 387, 397 (1968). 10 CONG.GLOBE, 37th Cong., 2d Sess., app. 2 (1862). 11 C. Stanley Dees, The Future of the Contract Disputes Act: Is It Time to Roll Back Sovereign Immunity?, 28 PUB.CONT. L.J. 545, 546 (1999). 12 Act of March 3, 1863, ch. 92, 12 Stat Harold J. Krent, Reconceptualizing Sovereign Immunity, 45 VAND. L.REV. 1529, 1565 (1992).

4 228 Litigation With The Federal Government 4.02(a)(2) Through the use of contracts, government has been able to perform its functions more effectively by drawing on private resources to deliver governmental goods and services. Politically, by honoring its contracts, government has reinforced its democratic legitimacy as a government subject to the rule of law. 14 In 1886, Representative John Randolph Tucker introduced a bill in Congress to revise the jurisdiction and procedures of the Court of Claims and to replace the earlier 1855 and 1863 statutes. 15 The Tucker Act, 16 enacted in 1887, remains the foundation stone in the adjudication of money claims against the United States. 17 This statute confirmed the powers and nationwide jurisdiction of the Court of Claims over money claims (other than in tort) based upon federal statutes, executive regulations, and contract, and also expanded that court s authority to include actions based upon the Constitution. Moreover, the Tucker Act granted the then-circuit courts (what today are the District Courts) concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Claims over monetary claims not exceeding $10,000 in amount. 18 With certain structural modifications, 19 the substance of the Tucker Act has been remarkably stable during the past century. 4.02(a)(2) The Modern Reconstitution Of The Court Of Claims Into The Court Of Federal Claims During the past quarter century, the former Court of Claims has been reconstituted once and renamed twice: First, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 (FCIA) 20 bifurcated the original Court of Claims into two separate but related judicial entities. The old Court of Claims was an Article III court, with its judges being ap- 14 Gillian Hadfield, Of Sovereignty and Contract: Damages for Breach of Contract by Government,8 S.CAL.INTERDISC. L.J. 467, 467 (1999). 15 H.R. 6974, 59th Cong. (1886). See generally United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 213 (1983). 16 Tucker Act, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505 (1887) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.). As discussed below, see infra 4.02(b), the substance of the Tucker Act is found primarily in 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2) (the Little Tucker Act ) and 1941 (the Big Tucker Act ). 17 Dees, supra note 11, at Noone & Lester, supra note 9, at 575. The concurrent jurisdiction of the District Courts over the Little Tucker Act claims is codified today at 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2). See infra 4.02(c). 19 On contract claims, see infra 4.05, and on civilian employment law claims, see infra Pub. L. No , 96 Stat. 39 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.).

5 4.02(a)(2) General Sovereign Immunity Waivers 229 pointed for life tenure, as with judges on the federal District Courts and Courts of Appeals. 21 As part of the FCIA, Congress established the slightly renamed United States Claims Court as the trial court for Tucker Act claims. and then created the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to hear appeals involving these and other claims. 22 Congress designated the Claims Court as an Article I court 23 that is, a court created by Congress pursuant to its legislative powers under Article I of the Constitution and that is comprised of judges who do not have the life-tenure protection guaranteed to members of the regular federal judiciary by Article III of the Constitution. The creation of the Federal Circuit, however, preserved appellate review by an Article III court. In a comprehensive history of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Professor Richard H. Seamon explains that this creation of a new trial court was incidental to the creation of the Federal Circuit as the new appellate court with authority over patent appeals as well as appeals from the then- Claims Court. 24 Professor Daniel J. Meador (who should be recognized as the father of the court due to his essential work on court reform legislation while serving in the Department of Justice) confirms that the creation of the Claims Court was incidental, not unimportant, but incidental in the sense that the primary concern [of the Congress] was with appellate matters. 25 In many respects, the division of trial and appellate authority between the then-claims Court and the Federal Circuit was a continuation of preexisting adjudication practice in the former Court of Claims. 26 Before enactment of the FCIA in 1982, Congress had authorized trials to be conducted before non-article III trial commissioners, with appellate review by the Article III judges on the Court of Claims. 27 By advancing from the prior system of court commissioners who handled trial matters in government claims cases to Article I judges with final-judgment authority, the 1982 legislation 21 Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 584 (1962) (declaring that the Court of Claims was an Article III court). 22 FCIA 105(a), 133(a), 96 Stat See generally Seamon, supra note 7, at 178 n U.S.C. 171(a). See infra 4.02(a)(3). 24 Richard H. Seamon, The Provenance of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982,71 GEO.WASH. L. REV. 543, 545, (2003). 25 Daniel J. Meador, Origin of the Claims Court, 71 GEO.WASH.L.REV. 599, 599 (2003). 26 See generally Seaboard Lumber Co. v. United States, 903 F.2d 1560, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Strom Thurmond, Introduction: United States Claims Court Symposium, 40 CATH. U. L. REV. 513, 513 (1991) U.S.C

6 230 Litigation With The Federal Government 4.02(a)(3) upgraded the trial forum for government claims and made it more efficient, 28 while preserving the appellate review by Article III judges, now those on the Federal Circuit. Second, in 1992, the Claims Court was renamed the United States Court of Federal Claims. 29 The court retains that denomination to this day. While the courthouse for the Court of Federal Claims is in the nation s capital, the court s judges regularly hold sessions at other locations with a view to securing reasonable opportunity to citizens to appear before the Court of Federal Claims with as little inconvenience and expense to citizens as is practicable. 30 By statute, hearings of the court shall, if convenient, be held in the counties where the witnesses reside. 31 Indeed, the court may also hold hearings in foreign countries whose laws do not prohibit such proceedings and when the interests of economy, efficiency, and justice will be served. 32 Thus, the court regularly sits outside of Washington, D.C. and schedules hearings and trials in places of greater convenience to the plaintiffs and the witnesses. 4.02(a)(3) The Article I Status Of The Court Of Federal Claims An Article I court consists of judges who are appointed, not for life as are Article III judges, but for a term of years. 33 In Northern Pipeline Construc- 28 Seamon, supra note 24, at Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No , 902, 106 Stat. 4506, 4516 (codified in scattered sections of 18 and 28 U.S.C.). On the jurisdictional and structural reforms that accompanied the name change in 1992, see generally Loren A. Smith, The Renovation of an Old Court, 40 FED.B.NEWS & J. 530 (1993) U.S.C Id. 2503(c). 32 Id. 798(b). 33 On the validity of Article I or Legislative courts when appellate review by an Article III court is afforded, see generally Richard H. Fallon, Of Legislative Courts, Administrative Agencies, and Article III, 101 HARV. L. REV. 915, (1988) (stating that the decision whether to use non article III bodies to make initial determinations even of constitutional law should be largely discretionary with Congress, provided that decisions by such non- Article III tribunals are reviewable on appeal by an Article III appellate court); Richard B. Saphire & Michael E. Solimine, Shoring Up Article III: Legislative Court Doctrine in the Post CFTC v. Schor Era, 68 B.U. L. REV. 85 (1988) (generally arguing that the availability of further review in an Article III court constitutionally legitimates non-article III tribunals); Floyd D. Shinomura, The History of Claims Against the United States: The Evolution from a Legislative Toward a Judicial Model of Payment, 45 LA. L. REV. 625, (1985) (arguing

FedERAL LIABILITY. Has the United States Waived Sovereign Immunity Through the Tucker Act for Damages Claims Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act?

FedERAL LIABILITY. Has the United States Waived Sovereign Immunity Through the Tucker Act for Damages Claims Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act? FedERAL LIABILITY Has the United States Waived Sovereign Immunity Through the Tucker Act for Damages Claims Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act? CASE AT A GLANCE The United States is asking the Court to

More information

5 Suits Against Federal Officers or Employees

5 Suits Against Federal Officers or Employees 5 Suits Against Federal Officers or Employees 5.01 INTRODUCTION TO SUITS AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES Although the primary focus in this treatise is upon litigation claims against the federal

More information

The Jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and Forum Shopping in Money Claims Against the Federal Government

The Jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and Forum Shopping in Money Claims Against the Federal Government Indiana Law Journal Volume 88 Issue 1 Article 2 Winter 2013 The Jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and Forum Shopping in Money Claims Against the Federal Government Gregory C. Sisk University

More information

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 810 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1987) Joseph A. Maria, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 810 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1987) Joseph A. Maria, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant. C.p. Chemical Company, Inc., Plaintiff appellant, v. United States of America and U.S. Consumer Product Safetycommission, Defendantsappellees, 810 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1987) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second

More information

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS21489 Updated September 10, 2003 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Summary OMB Circular A-76: Explanation and Discussion of the Recently Revised Federal Outsourcing Policy

More information

Claims Court at the Crossroads

Claims Court at the Crossroads Claims Court at the Crossroads The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Published Version Accessed Citable Link

More information

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44: i

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44: i FROM ORPHAN TO MATURITY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM DURING L. RALPH MECHAM'S TENURE AS DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS LLOYD D. GEORGE* TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

Torts Federal Tort Claims Act Exception as to Assault and Battery

Torts Federal Tort Claims Act Exception as to Assault and Battery Nebraska Law Review Volume 34 Issue 3 Article 14 1955 Torts Federal Tort Claims Act Exception as to Assault and Battery Alfred Blessing University of Nebraska College of Law Follow this and additional

More information

REVEALING REDUNDANCY: THE TENSION BETWEEN FEDERAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND NONSTATUTORY REVIEW

REVEALING REDUNDANCY: THE TENSION BETWEEN FEDERAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND NONSTATUTORY REVIEW K OVACS 7.0.DOC REVEALING REDUNDANCY: THE TENSION BETWEEN FEDERAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND NONSTATUTORY REVIEW Kathryn E. Kovacs* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction... 78 II. Suing the United States... 79

More information

Litigant Consent: The Missing Link for Permissible Jurisdiction for Final Judgment in Non-Article III Courts after Stern v.

Litigant Consent: The Missing Link for Permissible Jurisdiction for Final Judgment in Non-Article III Courts after Stern v. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 20 Issue 4 Article 8 2012 Litigant Consent: The Missing Link for Permissible Jurisdiction for Final Judgment in Non-Article III Courts after Stern v. Marshall

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1014 JIMMY EVANS, Petitioner, Appellant, v. MICHAEL A. THOMPSON, Superintendent of MCI Shirley, Respondent, Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-935 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL

More information

2 The Bankruptcy System

2 The Bankruptcy System 2 The Bankruptcy System 2.01 THE BANKRUPTCY COURT 2.01(a) Introduction The bankruptcy court system enacted by the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 ( BAFJA ), Pub. L. No. 98-353,

More information

2010] RECENT CASES 753

2010] RECENT CASES 753 RECENT CASES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EIGHTH AMENDMENT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HOLDS THAT PRISONER RELEASE IS NECESSARY TO REMEDY UNCONSTITUTIONAL CALIFORNIA PRISON CONDITIONS. Coleman v. Schwarzenegger,

More information

FEDERAL COURTS, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE RE-EXAMINING CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE FEDERAL COURTS: AN INTRODUCTION

FEDERAL COURTS, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE RE-EXAMINING CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE FEDERAL COURTS: AN INTRODUCTION FEDERAL COURTS, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE RE-EXAMINING CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE FEDERAL COURTS: AN INTRODUCTION Anthony J. Bellia Jr.* Legal scholars have debated intensely the role of customary

More information

From the Bankruptcy Courts: Mortgage Foreclosure Sales as Fraudulent Conveyances-Does the 1984 Act Make a Difference?

From the Bankruptcy Courts: Mortgage Foreclosure Sales as Fraudulent Conveyances-Does the 1984 Act Make a Difference? Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 1985 From the Bankruptcy Courts: Mortgage Foreclosure Sales as Fraudulent Conveyances-Does

More information

The Future of Fair Housing Litigation

The Future of Fair Housing Litigation University of Kentucky UKnowledge Law Faculty Scholarly Articles Law Faculty Publications 1993 The Future of Fair Housing Litigation Robert G. Schwemm University of Kentucky College of Law, schwemmr@uky.edu

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al.

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al. Appellate Case: 16-4154 Document: 01019730944 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 1 No. 16-4154 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 16-76 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- J. CARL COOPER,

More information

RESPONDING TO STERN V. MARSHALL

RESPONDING TO STERN V. MARSHALL RESPONDING TO STERN V. MARSHALL ABSTRACT Stern v. Marshall is the most recent decision in a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court that involves the doctrine of public rights. The Court found that

More information

No CORE CONCEPTS OF FLORIDA, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No CORE CONCEPTS OF FLORIDA, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No. 03-254 In the Supreme C ourt of the United States United States CORE CONCEPTS OF FLORIDA, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

More information

T HE F EDERAL C IRCUIT H ISTORICAL S OCIETY

T HE F EDERAL C IRCUIT H ISTORICAL S OCIETY J OURNAL OF T HE F EDERAL C IRCUIT H ISTORICAL S OCIETY VOLUME 8, 2014 2014, The Federal Circuit Historical Society 901 New York Avenue, NW Suite 9181 Washington, DC 20001 www.federalcircuithistoricalsociety.org

More information

In re Chateaugay Corp.: An Analysis of the Interaction Between the Bankruptcy Code and CERCLA

In re Chateaugay Corp.: An Analysis of the Interaction Between the Bankruptcy Code and CERCLA Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law Volume 6 Issue 2 Article 12 5-1-1992 In re Chateaugay Corp.: An Analysis of the Interaction Between the Bankruptcy Code and CERCLA Thomas L. Stockard Follow

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States NO. 11-192 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JAMES X. BORMES, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for

More information

WikiLeaks Document Release

WikiLeaks Document Release WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS21402 Federal Lands, R.S. 2477, and Disclaimers of Interest Pamela Baldwin, American Law Division May 22, 2006 Abstract.

More information

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Fordham Urban Law Journal Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 4 4 Number 3 Article 10 1976 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1972- Jurisdiction to Review Effluent Limitation Regulations Promulgated

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit K-CON, INC., Appellant v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, Appellee 2017-2254 Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 60686, 60687,

More information

When is a ruling truly final?

When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? Ryan B. McCrum at Jones Day considers the Fresenius v Baxter ruling and its potential impact on patent litigation in the US. In a case that could

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 14-CV-876 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 14-CV-876 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN FELIX J. BRUETTE, JR., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 14-CV-876 SALLY JEWELL, Secretary of the Interior, Defendant, VALERIE J. BRUETTE, IVAN D. BRUETTE,

More information

Foreign Contractor And Subcontractor Claims Against The United States Government Part One

Foreign Contractor And Subcontractor Claims Against The United States Government Part One Foreign Contractor And Subcontractor Claims Against The United States Government Part One by John B. Tieder, Jr., Senior Partner, Paul A. Varela, Senior Partner, and David B. Wonderlick, Partner Watt Tieder

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. DELORES SCHINNELLER, Respondent. No. 4D15-1704 [July 27, 2016] Petition for writ of certiorari

More information

THE KNOWLAND AMENDMENT: A POTENTIAL THREAT TO FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

THE KNOWLAND AMENDMENT: A POTENTIAL THREAT TO FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION Yale Law Journal Volume 60 Issue 5 Yale Law Journal Article 7 1951 THE KNOWLAND AMENDMENT: A POTENTIAL THREAT TO FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION STANDARDS Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj

More information

Case 2:01-x JAC Document 57 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:01-x JAC Document 57 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:01-x-70414-JAC Document 57 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. WALTER MARK LAZAR, v. Plaintiffs

More information

The Appellate Courts Role in the Federal Judicial System 1

The Appellate Courts Role in the Federal Judicial System 1 The Appellate Courts Role in the Federal Judicial System 1 Anne Marie Lofaso * A. Introduction 2 B. Federal Judicial System 3 1. An independent judiciary 3 2. Role of appellate courts: To correct errors,

More information

IT S BLONDER-TONGUE ALL OVER AGAIN

IT S BLONDER-TONGUE ALL OVER AGAIN IT S BLONDER-TONGUE ALL OVER AGAIN Alex Kozinski * & Daniel Mandell ** INTRODUCTION Thirty-two years ago, Congress passed the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 (Act). 1 The Act was the first significant

More information

Section 1500 and the Jurisdictional Pitfalls of Federal Government Litigation

Section 1500 and the Jurisdictional Pitfalls of Federal Government Litigation The Alexander Blewett III School of Law The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law Faculty Law Review Articles Faculty Publications 12-1997 Section 1500 and the Jurisdictional Pitfalls of Federal Government Litigation

More information

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MOED ON THE GOVERNMENT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MOED ON THE GOVERNMENT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Empresa de Viacao Terceirense ) ASBCA No. 49827 ) Under Contract No. F61040-94-C-0003 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:

More information

Case: , 04/30/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 04/30/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 17-70162, 04/30/2018, ID: 10854860, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 10) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 30 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT

More information

4 (Argued: February 6, 2009 Decided: May 12, 2009)

4 (Argued: February 6, 2009 Decided: May 12, 2009) 07-5300-cv Yakin v. Tyler Hill Corp, Inc. 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 August Term, 2008 4 (Argued: February 6, 2009 Decided: May 12, 2009) 5 Docket No. 07-5300-cv 6 7 SARA

More information

FEDERAL LIABILITY. Levin v. United States Docket No Argument Date: January 15, 2013 From: The Ninth Circuit

FEDERAL LIABILITY. Levin v. United States Docket No Argument Date: January 15, 2013 From: The Ninth Circuit FEDERAL LIABILITY Has the United States Waived Sovereign Immunity for Claims of Medical Battery Based on the Acts of Military Medical Personnel? CASE AT A GLANCE Under the Gonzalez Act, the United States

More information

THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS BY AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AGENCY. Jeffrey B. Litwak 1

THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS BY AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AGENCY. Jeffrey B. Litwak 1 THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS BY AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AGENCY I. Introduction Jeffrey B. Litwak 1 An interstate compact agency is a creature of a compact between two or more states. Like

More information

CRS-2 morning and that the federal and state statutes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 4 The Trial Court Decision. On July 21

CRS-2 morning and that the federal and state statutes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 4 The Trial Court Decision. On July 21 Order Code RS21250 Updated July 20, 2006 The Constitutionality of Including the Phrase Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance Summary Henry Cohen Legislative Attorney American Law Division On June 26, 2002,

More information

Raphael Theokary v. USA

Raphael Theokary v. USA 2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-31-2014 Raphael Theokary v. USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-3143 Follow this and

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-5057 ROBERT JAMES WALTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. Scott C. Weidenfeller, Covington & Burling LLP, of Washington,

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-956 In the Supreme Court of the United States BIOMEDICAL PATENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

More information

CITATION BY U.S. COURTS TO DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CASES

CITATION BY U.S. COURTS TO DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CASES CITATION BY U.S. COURTS TO DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CASES Lawrence R. Walders* The topic of the Symposium is the citation to foreign court precedent in domestic jurisprudence.

More information

Overview of the Appeal Process for Veterans Claims

Overview of the Appeal Process for Veterans Claims Overview of the Appeal Process for Veterans Claims Daniel T. Shedd Legislative Attorney July 16, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional Research Service

More information

The Future: Scrutinizing The Empirical Case For the Court of Federal Claims

The Future: Scrutinizing The Empirical Case For the Court of Federal Claims THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 50 The Future: Scrutinizing The Empirical Case For the Court of Federal Claims STEVEN L. SCHOONER This paper can

More information

QUESTION Does the federal court in State A have removal jurisdiction over the case? Explain.

QUESTION Does the federal court in State A have removal jurisdiction over the case? Explain. WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE 33. QUESTION 5 The owner of a rare antique tapestry worth more than $1 million is a citizen of State A. The owner contacted a restorer, a citizen of State B, to restore

More information

Yesterday and Today: Of Indians, Breach of Trust, Money, and Sovereign Immunity

Yesterday and Today: Of Indians, Breach of Trust, Money, and Sovereign Immunity Tulsa Law Review Volume 39 Issue 2 The Indian Trust Doctrine After the 2002-2003 Supreme Court Term Article 4 Winter 2003 Yesterday and Today: Of Indians, Breach of Trust, Money, and Sovereign Immunity

More information

No NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORP., Petitioner,

No NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORP., Petitioner, No. 10-122 NORTH STAR ALASKA HOUSING CORP., Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit REPLY BRIEF FOR

More information

CRS Report for Congress

CRS Report for Congress Order Code RL31997 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Authority to Enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in the Wake of the Homeland Security Act: Legal Issues July 16, 2003

More information

Labor Law Federal Court Injunction against Breach of No-Strike Clause

Labor Law Federal Court Injunction against Breach of No-Strike Clause Nebraska Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 Article 10 1961 Labor Law Federal Court Injunction against Breach of No-Strike Clause G. Bradford Cook University of Nebraska College of Law, bradcook2@mac.com Follow

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-1044 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court

More information

MENDEZ v. USA Doc. 12 RI AL. No C. (Filed: September 20, 2016) (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

MENDEZ v. USA Doc. 12 RI AL. No C. (Filed: September 20, 2016) (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MENDEZ v. USA Doc. 12 RI AL 3Jn tbe Wniteb セエ エ ウ @ (!Court of jf eberal (!Claims No. 16-441C (Filed: September 20, 2016 (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ********************************** LAWRENCE MENDEZ, JR., Plaintiff,

More information

Case 3:13-cv SCC Document 47 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:13-cv SCC Document 47 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 9 Case 3:13-cv-01606-SCC Document 47 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO MARIA A. VALDEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CIV. NO.: 13-1606(SCC) UNITED STATES OF

More information

When is an Attorney Unreasonable and Vexatious?

When is an Attorney Unreasonable and Vexatious? Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 45 Issue 1 Article 8 1-1-1988 When is an Attorney Unreasonable and Vexatious? Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of

More information

TORTS-THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT-ABSOLUTE LIABILITY, THE DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION EXCEPTION, SONIC BooMs. Laird v. Nelms, 92 S. Ct (1972).

TORTS-THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT-ABSOLUTE LIABILITY, THE DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION EXCEPTION, SONIC BooMs. Laird v. Nelms, 92 S. Ct (1972). TORTS-THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT-ABSOLUTE LIABILITY, THE DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION EXCEPTION, SONIC BooMs. Laird v. Nelms, 92 S. Ct. 1899 (1972). J IM NELMS, a resident of a rural community near Nashville,

More information

8/4/2010 8:08 AM PATWARDHAN_COMMENT_FORMATTED_ DOC (DO NOT DELETE)

8/4/2010 8:08 AM PATWARDHAN_COMMENT_FORMATTED_ DOC (DO NOT DELETE) Criminal Law Fourth Circuit Allows 3582(c)(2) Sentence Modification Under Rule 11 Plea Agreement to Specific Term United States v. Dews, 551 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2008), reh g en banc granted, No. 08-6458

More information

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc KELLY J. BLANCHETTE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SC95053 ) STEVEN M. BLANCHETTE, ) ) Respondent. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY Honorable John N.

More information

12(b) What? Slater and Enforcing Forum Selection Clauses Through Dismissal

12(b) What? Slater and Enforcing Forum Selection Clauses Through Dismissal Boston College Law Review Volume 53 Issue 6 Electronic Supplement Article 10 2-16-2012 12(b) What? Slater and Enforcing Forum Selection Clauses Through Dismissal Claire M. Specht Boston College Law School,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 16, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEREINO

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2003 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes

More information

DEPUTIZATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE AND THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT

DEPUTIZATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE AND THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT DEPUTIZATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE AND THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT The Hoopa Valley Tribe (hereinafter referred to as Tribe ), a sovereign, federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, and the County

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 8, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff - Appellee,

More information

Bankruptcy. Louisiana Law Review. Joseph E. Conley Jr. Volume 43 Number 2 Developments in the Law, : A Symposium November 1982

Bankruptcy. Louisiana Law Review. Joseph E. Conley Jr. Volume 43 Number 2 Developments in the Law, : A Symposium November 1982 Louisiana Law Review Volume 43 Number 2 Developments in the Law, 1981-1982: A Symposium November 1982 Bankruptcy Joseph E. Conley Jr. Repository Citation Joseph E. Conley Jr., Bankruptcy, 43 La. L. Rev.

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 01-1067 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

More information

Tribal Sovereignty & Tribal Responsibility

Tribal Sovereignty & Tribal Responsibility Tribal Sovereignty & Tribal Responsibility Robert N Clinton Copyright 2018 Introduction Disclaimer Juxtapose Two Different Perspectives on (1) Dispute Resolution and (2) Sovereignty Tribal Perspective

More information

PUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, No

PUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, No PUBLISH FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 19, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT MINER ELECTRIC, INC.; RUSSELL E. MINER, v.

More information

APPLICABILITY OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT TO FEDERAL JUDGES

APPLICABILITY OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT TO FEDERAL JUDGES APPLICABILITY OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT TO FEDERAL JUDGES Alliance for Justice 11 Dupont Circle NW, Second Floor Washington, DC 20036 www.afj.org About Alliance for Justice Alliance for Justice is

More information

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office)

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/19/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-00769, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code: 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF

More information

Case 1:13-cv Document 1-1 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv Document 1-1 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:13-cv-00425 Document 1-1 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:13-cv-00425 Document 1-1 Filed 04/03/13 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:13-cv-00425 Document 1 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 552 U. S. (2008) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

EXPOSING THE FAULT LINES UNDER STATE UDAP STATUTES

EXPOSING THE FAULT LINES UNDER STATE UDAP STATUTES EXPOSING THE FAULT LINES UNDER STATE UDAP STATUTES MATTHEW W. SAWCHAK TROY D. SHELTON* State statutes on unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP statutes) have been on the books for half a century

More information

Federal Election Campaign Act--Political Committee (United States v. National Committee for Impeachment)

Federal Election Campaign Act--Political Committee (United States v. National Committee for Impeachment) St. John's Law Review Volume 48 Issue 2 Volume 48, December 1973, Number 2 Article 16 August 2012 Federal Election Campaign Act--Political Committee (United States v. National Committee for Impeachment)

More information

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

Attorneys for Amici Curiae No. 09-115 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. MICHAEL B. WHITING, et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United

More information

Introduction And Overview

Introduction And Overview 1 Introduction And Overview 1.01 THE NEED FOR REVISION OF BANKRUPTCY LAWS IN 1978 The present bankruptcy laws are, for the most part, the result of legislation originally passed by Congress in 1978 with

More information

No In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING COMPANY, et al.,

No In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING COMPANY, et al., i No. 07-308 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING COMPANY, et al., Petitioner, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-376 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOHN V. FURRY, as Personal Representative Of the Estate and Survivors of Tatiana H. Furry, v. Petitioner, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA; MICCOSUKEE

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * ROSA AMELIA AREVALO-LARA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit May 4, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON

More information

Defeating an ERISA Lien with the Statute of Limitations

Defeating an ERISA Lien with the Statute of Limitations University of South Dakota School of Law From the SelectedWorks of Roger Baron 2012 Defeating an ERISA Lien with the Statute of Limitations Roger Baron, University of South Dakota School of Law Anthony

More information

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2017

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2017 Case: 17-50201 Document: 00514015518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2017 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Appellate Staff 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Rm. 7252 Washington, DC 20530 MBS:ACWright Abby

More information

AUTHORITY OF USDA TO AWARD MONETARY RELIEF FOR DISCRIMINATION

AUTHORITY OF USDA TO AWARD MONETARY RELIEF FOR DISCRIMINATION AUTHORITY OF USDA TO AWARD MONETARY RELIEF FOR DISCRIMINATION The Department of Agriculture has authority to award monetary relief, attorneys' fees, and costs to a person who has been discriminated against

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-1092 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KENT LATTIMORE,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 13-5055 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/09/2014 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ERIC D. CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5055 Appeal

More information

Case: , 12/06/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 45-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 12/06/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 45-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 17-16206, 12/06/2018, ID: 11111895, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED DEC 06 2018 (1 of 9) MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT

More information

In United States Court of Federal Claims

In United States Court of Federal Claims Case 1:06-cv-00896-EJD Document 34 Filed 06/25/2008 Page 1 of 16 In United States Court of Federal Claims THE WESTERN SHOSHONE IDENTIFIABLE ) GROUP, represented by THE YOMBA ) SHOSHONE TRIBE, a federally

More information

~n ~e ~upreme g;ourt o[ t~ i~init ~ ~tat~

~n ~e ~upreme g;ourt o[ t~ i~init ~ ~tat~ No. 08-881 ~:~LED / APR 152009 J / OFFICE 3F TI.~: ~ c lk J ~n ~e ~upreme g;ourt o[ t~ i~init ~ ~tat~ MARTIN MARCEAU, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. BLACKFEET HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

More information

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR JONATHAN L. ZITTRAIN BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET OF THE

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR JONATHAN L. ZITTRAIN BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET OF THE STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR JONATHAN L. ZITTRAIN BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PROMOTING

More information

Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach*

Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach* RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach* I. INTRODUCTION In Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach, Maryland's highest court was asked to use the tools of statutory interpretation

More information

Toward a Theory of Public Rights: Article III and the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984

Toward a Theory of Public Rights: Article III and the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 Nebraska Law Review Volume 70 Issue 3 Article 7 1991 Toward a Theory of Public Rights: Article III and the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 Jeffrey H. Bush University of Nebraska

More information

CONSUMER ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION WAIVERS: WHY THE SUPREME COURT S DEFENSE OF ARBITRATION HAS GONE TOO FAR

CONSUMER ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION WAIVERS: WHY THE SUPREME COURT S DEFENSE OF ARBITRATION HAS GONE TOO FAR CONSUMER ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION WAIVERS: WHY THE SUPREME COURT S DEFENSE OF ARBITRATION HAS GONE TOO FAR Alexander C. Hyder * ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS COLLECTIVE ACTION WAIVERS FEDERAL

More information

INTRODUCTION GLENN L. ARCHER, JR.*

INTRODUCTION GLENN L. ARCHER, JR.* INTRODUCTION GLENN L. ARCHER, JR.* In introducing the 1995 Federal Circuit edition of The American University Law Review, it is my pleasure as the ChiefJudge to report on recent developments involving

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States Nos. 13-1074 and 13-1075 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------

More information

WHAT S HAPPENING TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE?

WHAT S HAPPENING TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE? WHAT S HAPPENING TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE? PROPOSED FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502 THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2007 THE MCNULTY MEMORANDUM DABNEY CARR

More information

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELODIE McATEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 07-55065 D.C. No. CV-06-00709-CJC

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 55 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION TERRYL T. MATT, CV 15-28-GF-BMM Plaintiff, vs. ORDER UNITED

More information

Interim Attorney's Fees Awards against the Federal Government

Interim Attorney's Fees Awards against the Federal Government NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 68 Number 1 Article 11 11-1-1989 Interim Attorney's Fees Awards against the Federal Government Gregory C. Sisk Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr

More information

Federal Question Jurisdiction over Actions Brought by Aliens against Foreign States

Federal Question Jurisdiction over Actions Brought by Aliens against Foreign States Cornell International Law Journal Volume 15 Issue 2 Summer 1982 Article 6 Federal Question Jurisdiction over Actions Brought by Aliens against Foreign States Michael H. Schubert Follow this and additional

More information

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

In the United States Court of Federal Claims In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-84C (Filed: November 19, 2014 FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, et al. v. Plaintiffs, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Tucker Act;

More information