green
Positive treatment
Trending · 81 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 11×
21.5 score
G Cite
cited 12× by 4 distinct cases, 2012–2016 ·
…njeither the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
⚠ not in text
cited 9× by 3 distinct cases ·
…either the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2011 ·
…neither the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hood v. United States
(3×)
njeither the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Caldwell v. United States
either the fifth amendment due process clause . . . nor the privileges and lmmunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of moneyto plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Aziz El ex rel. Kamal-Jalal v. United States
(3×)
either the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nie v. United States
(3×)
either the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Veasey v. United States
(3×)
either the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Veasey v. United States
eitherthe fifth amendment due process clause . . . nor the privileges and lmmunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Baber v. United States
either the fifth amendment due process clause .. . nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Baber v. United States
(3×)
njeither the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ilaw v. United States
(3×)
njeither the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Davis v. United States
(3×)
njeither the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Semper v. United States
(3×)
neither the fifth amendment due process clause ... nor the privileges and immunities clause provides a basis for jurisdiction in this court because the fifth amendment is not a source that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ruffin
See United States v. Stroman, 500 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir.) (concluding that other witness could have contradicted ‘‘many elements . . . although admittedly not all’’ of defendant’s confession that he had possessed handgun and hid it in building while he was alone), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1050 , 128 S. Ct. 674 , 169 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Prophet v. United States
(3×)
Congress recognized that “ ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain fi’om filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’ ” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 , 112 S.Ct. 1728 , 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 , 109 S.Ct. 1827 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)); see also McCullough v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 1, 3 (2006), appeal dismissed, 236 Fed.Appx. 615 (Fed.Cir.) reh’g denied (Fed.Cir.) cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1050 , 128 S.Ct. 675 , 169 L.Ed.2d…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore v. United States
(3×)
In enacting the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , Congress recognized that “ ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’ ” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 , 112 S.Ct. 1728 , 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 , 109 S.Ct. 1827 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)); see also McCullough v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 1, 3 (2006), appeal dismissed, 236 Fed.Appx. 615 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (Fed.Ci…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Waltner v. United States
(3×)
In enacting the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , Congress recognized that “ ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’ ” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 , 112 S.Ct. 1728 , 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 , 109 S.Ct. 1827 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)); see also McCullough v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 1, 3 (2006), appeal dismissed, 236 Fed.Appx. 615 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (Fed.Ci…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George Calvin McCULLOUGH
v.
UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 07-7139.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Nov 26, 2007.
Published
Citer courts: Federal Claims (27)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.