green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
2.4 score
“ignorance of the law is not ground for tolling the statutes of limitations.”
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pomeroy v. United States
ignorance of the law is not ground for tolling the statutes of limitations.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moorman v. United States
Marshall,20l0 WL 1259'78 at *2 (finding that a plaintiff must assert "a substantive claim founded in some other source of law that'can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Govemment for the damages sustained."' (quoting Mitcher, 463 U.S. at216'17)); see also Cundari v. United States, 650 F.2d 287 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (holding that generalized complaints concerning the government's fiscal and monetary policy cannot be litigated).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bayshore Resources Co. v. United States
See e.g., ABC Cleaning Service v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 630, 631 , 650 F.2d 287 (1980); Peters v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 373, 377 , 534 F.2d 232, 235 (1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
THOMAS J. RYDER
v.
THE UNITED STATES
v.
THE UNITED STATES
No. 273-77.
United States Court of Claims.
Apr 25, 1980.
Published
Citer courts: Federal Claims (1)
On April 25,1980 the court entered judgment for plaintiff for $85,879.87. Of this amount, $17,175.97 should be credited to plaintiffs Internal Revenue Service withholding tax account; $9,372.77 should be credited to plaintiffs Civil Service retirement account; $3.67 should be credited to plaintiffs Federal Employee’s Life Insurance Fund account; and $53,484.43 should be credited to the Department of the Army’s account as reimbursement for its erroneous partial administrative payment of back pay to plaintiff following this court’s decision on liability. The balance of $5,843.03 should be paid to plaintiff.