In Re Werner (Hans H.)werner, in Re, 723 F.2d 69 (Fed. Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Werner (Hans H.)werner, in Re, 723 F.2d 69 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“plaintiffs do not challenge the validity or propriety of the fcc order concerned. instead, plaintiffs argue that the order itself was a 'taking' . . . the claims court has jurisdiction.”
56 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc. v. United States (uscfc, 2019-10-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
plaintiffs do not challenge the validity or propriety of the fcc order concerned. instead, plaintiffs argue that the order itself was a 'taking' . . . the claims court has jurisdiction.
cited Cited "see" YRT Services Corp. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harris Data Communications, Inc. v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 229, 237 , aff'd mem., 723 F.2d 69 (Fed.Cir.1983).
cited Cited "see" Quality Transport Services, Inc. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harris Data Communications, Inc. v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 229, 237, aff'd mem., 723 F.2d 69 (Fed.Cir.1983).
cited Cited "see" Brock v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.
W.D. Tex. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Allen v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 649 (1983), affirmed, 723 F.2d 69 (Fed.Cir.1983).
cited Cited "see" Eastern Marine, Inc. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harris Data Communications, Inc. v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 229, 237 (1983) (Nettesheim, J.), aff'd mem., 723 F.2d 69 (1983).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Tindle v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Schuster v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 708 (1983), aff'd, 723 F.2d 69 (Fed.Cir.1983)(table).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Doko Farms v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Ivary v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 663, 665 (1983) (decision of Claims Court that claim barred by statute of limitations is adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata)', Schuster v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 708, 710 (judgment that plaintiff’s claim barred by statute of limitations is “on the merits” for purposes of res judicata), aff'd, 723 F.2d 69 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Allied-General Nuclear Services v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, e.g., Shanbaum v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 177 (1982) aff'd 723 F.2d 69 (Fed.Cir.1983). 3 This circumstance, in the instant case, is not unlike that in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 2862 , 81 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984), where the regulatory taking was alleged to have arisen in connection with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136a and 136h.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Werner (Hans H.)werner, in Re
83-844.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sep 27, 1983.
723 F.2d 69
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 82%
Citer courts: Federal Claims (1)

723 F.2d 69

In re Werner (Hans H.)Werner, In re

NO. 83-844

United States Court of Appeals, federal Circuit.

SEP 27, 1983

Appeal From: TO

PTO.