green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
38.2 score
“failure to challenge an improper agency action does not ratify such action or insulate it from later objection and litigation,”
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
The Boeing Company v. Secretary of the Air Force
in construing a statute or regulation, we begin by reviewing its language to ascer- tain its plain meaning.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Silver Buckle Mines, Inc. v. United States
failure to challenge an improper agency action does not ratify such action or insulate it from later objection and litigation,
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States
the plain language of analogous statutory language is normally read in the same way
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tindall v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ABBOTT v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1306 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Flynn v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1296 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sh Synergy, LLC. v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc. v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northern California Power Agency v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1307 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
D'Anna Laminack v. Department of the Interior
American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Raytheon Company v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1296 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
District of Columbia Water and Sewer v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Boeing Company v. United States
Boeing’s claim falls under the Eastport S.S. category for which the “money-mandating” standard need not be met. 5 We have, since Norman, assumed jurisdiction over statutory illegal exaction claims with no regard for whether the statutes were “money-mandating.” See, e.g., American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1296 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tapia v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Skinner-Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Analytical Graphics, Inc. v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ingham Regional Medical Center v. United States
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Starr International Company, Inc v. United States
American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed.Cir.2008) (user fees charged to airline were an illegal exaction despite airline’s failure to protest initial payments of the fee, because “failure to challenge an improper agency action does not. ratify such actions or insulate [Government] from later objections and litigation.”); Alyeska Pipeline, 224 Ct.Cl. at 248 , 624 F.2d at 1010 (unauthorized fee imposed on, and paid by, plaintiff as a condition of obtaining a right-of-way agreement for a pipeline was an illegal exaction); Finn v. United States, 192 Ct.Cl. 814, 820…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dickenson-Russell Coal Company v. Secretary of Labor
American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“When the language of a regulation is ambiguous or susceptible to more than one plausible reading, we defer to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.... ”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Inre: Zoltek Corporation
Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1307 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AEY, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 , 119 S.Ct. 755 , 142 L.Ed.2d 881 (1999); Sursely v. Peake, 551 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2009); American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed.Cir.2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hernandez, Kroone & Associates, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
Discovery into matters not before the court is not appropriate; defendant has not met its burden in this regard. “[Tjhe government ‘must possess “concrete and positive evidence” before it initiates discovery into matters relevant only as to establishment of offsets.’ ” American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2008) (citing Mahoney v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 713, 718 , 1980 WL 4712 (1980)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United Airlines, Inc. v. TSA
See American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294 , 1303–07 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bevevino v. United States
See id. (citing Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512 , 114 S.Ct. 2381 , 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994); Cathedral Candle Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 400 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2005); James v. Office of Pers.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
American Airlines, Inc.
v.
United States
v.
United States
2007-5174.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Apr 6, 2009.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-5174
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.
ERRATA
The following corrections are made in the court’s opinion in American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2008):
551 F.3d at 1302, first full paragraph, last two sentences: after “statute” insert “and regulations” after “statutory” insert “and regulatory”
551 F.3d at 1303, first full paragraph, last sentence: after “statutory” insert “and regulatory”
Dated: April 6, 2009